TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1086
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rpt of the said Order is reproduced below:- "The Respondent in his submissions made before the DGAP, which have been mentioned in Para 9 of the Report of the DGAP dated 23.03.2020, has himself admitted that he has been constructing one more project namely "Epic". The Respondent vide his e-mail dated 13.11.2020 sent to this Authority has also admitted that difference in the turnovers pertaining to the post-GST period as depicted in the Home-Buyer's List and the GST Returns furnished by him in respect of his "Mercado" project, which is subject matter of the present proceedings, has arisen due to the turnovers of another project of the Respondent namely "Epic" being included in them. Keeping in view the above self-admissions of the Respondent, the liability of the Respondent to pass on the benefit of additional ITC as per the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act, is required to be investigated in respect of his "Epic" project, as there are sufficient reasons to believe that the Respondent is required to pass on the benefit of additional ITC to the eligible buyers which he may not have passed on, as has been established in the present case. Accordingly, this Authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. (2) The Central Government may, on recommendations of the Council, by notification, constitute an Authority, or empower an existing Authority constituted under any law for the time being in force, to examine whether input tax credits availed by any registered person or the reduction in the tax rate have actually resulted in a commensurate reduction in the price of the goods or services or both supplied by him. (3) The Authority referred to in sub-section (2) shall exercise such powers and discharge such functions as may be prescribed." Under the explanation provided to Section 171, the expression "profiteered" shall mean the amount determined on account of not passing the benefit of reduction in rate of tax on supply of goods or services or both or the benefit of ITC to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the goods or services or both. Thus, in short, the benefit arising out of rate reduction and ITC due to the introduction of GST law should be passed on to the customers. (ii) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Construction Services provided to prospective buyers. (v) The Respondent had not availed CENVAT/ITC, related to 'EPIC' project, in pre-GST regime. Also, he neither raised any demand nor received any advance for this project in Pre-GST period. (vi) The project was outside the ambit of section 171 i.e. anti-profiteering measures and accordingly requested to drop the investigation. e. Vide the aforementioned letters/e-mails, the Respondent submitted the following documents/ information: (i) Copy of first builder buyer agreement dated 28.12.2018 for the project "EPIC". (ii) Copy of first work order dated 16.11.2018 executed with contractor along with first invoice raised by supplier. (iii) Copy of Registration Certificate dated 06.12.2018 granted by Haryana RERA for the project "Epic". (iv) Copy of advertisement in Newspaper for launching of the Project "Epic". f. In the Notice dated 01.01.2021, the Respondent was informed that if any information/documents were provided on confidential basis, in terms of Rule 130 of the Rules, a non-confidential summary of such information/documents was required to be furnished. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roject 'EPIC' was launched on 27.12.2018 i.e. in the GST Regime. i. From the verification of documents submitted by the Responder and his submission, it was observed that the Respondent had not availed any CENVAT/ITC, related to 'EPIC' project, in pre-GST regime. Also, the Respondent neither raised any demand nor received any advance for this project in Pre-GST period. Therefore, there was no pre-GST tax rate or ITC structure which could be compared with the post-GST tax rate and ITC. There was no availability of CENVAT to compare ITC which was available to the Respondent in the post-GST era. Hence, the base price in pre-GST era could not be computed to compare price change in post-GST period. It was also observed that the price charged for the said commercial units was for a new project developed and constructed by the Respondent after implementation of GST. Hence, it appeared that the anti-profiteering provisions were not applicable to the impugned project under investigation. j. It was also observed that the impugned project "EPIC" was a commercial project which was outside the definition of Residential Real Estate Project (RREP) and there was no reduction/chan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the post-GST tax rate and ITC structure and therefore, the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 were not applicable against the Respondent's project "Epic". In view of the facts and records/documents cited and considered by the DGAP in its report dated 24.03.2021, the Authority concurs with the findings of the DGAP that the provisions of section l71 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 does not get attracted in the present case for the said project "Epic" and for said period 01.07.2017 to 30.11.2020. 6. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its Order dated 23.03.2020, while taking suo-moto cognizance of the situation arising on account of Covid-19 pandemic, has extended the period of limitation prescribed under general law of Limitation or any other special laws (both Central end State) including those prescribed under Rule 133(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, as is clear from the said Order which stated as follows:- "A period of limitation in all, such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till Further order/s to be passed by this Court in pres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oject and their entitlement thereof. The excerpt of the said Order is reproduced below:- "The Respondent in his submissions made before the DGAP, which have been mentioned in Para 9 of the Report of the DGAP dated 23.03.2020, has himself admitted that he has been constructing one more project namely "Epic". The Respondent vide his e-mail dated 13.11.2020 sent to this Authority has also admitted that difference in the turnovers pertaining to the post-GST period as depicted in the Home-Buyer's List and the GST Returns furnished by him in respect of his "Mercado" project, which is subject matter of the present proceedings, has arisen due to the turnovers of another project of the Respondent namely "Epic" being included in them. Keeping in view the above self-admissions of the Respondent, the liability of the Respondent to pass on the benefit of additional ITC as per the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act, is required to be investigated in respect of his "Epic" project, as there are sufficient reasons to believe that the Respondent is required to pass on the benefit of additional ITC to the eligible buyers which he may not have passed on, as has been established in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "171 (1) Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. (2) The Central Government may, on recommendations of the Council, by notification, constitute an Authority, or empower an existing Authority constituted under any law for the time being in force, to examine whether input tax credits availed by any registered person or the reduction in the tax rate have actually resulted in a commensurate reduction in the price of the goods or services or both supplied by him. (3) The Authority referred to in sub-section (2) shall exercise such powers and discharge such functions as may be prescribed." Under the explanation provided to Section 171, the expression "profiteered" shall mean the amount determined on account of not passing the benefit of reduction in rate of tax on supply of goods or services or both or the benefit of ITC to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the goods or services or both. Thus, in short, the benefit arising out of rate reduction and ITC due to the introduction of GST law should ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.04.2019 and that he was charging GST @12% on Construction Services provided to prospective buyers. (v) The Respondent had not availed CENVAT/ITC, related to 'EPIC' project, in pre-GST regime. Also, he neither raised any demand nor received any advance for this project in Pre-GST period. (vi) The project was outside the ambit of section 171 i.e. anti-profiteering measures and accordingly requested to drop the investigation. e. Vide the aforementioned letters/e-mails, the Respondent submitted the following documents/ information: (i) Copy of first builder buyer agreement dated 28.12.2018 for the project "EPIC". (ii) Copy of first work order dated 16.11.2018 executed with contractor along with first invoice raised by supplier. (iii) Copy of Registration Certificate dated 06.12.2018 granted by Haryana RERA for the project "Epic". (iv) Copy of advertisement in Newspaper for launching of the Project "Epic". f. In the Notice dated 01.01.2021, the Respondent was informed that if any information/documents were provided on confidential basis, in terms of Rule 130 of the Rules, a non-confidential summary of such informa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NEWS), it was gathered by the DGAP that the project 'EPIC' was launched on 27.12.2018 i.e. in the GST Regime. i. From the verification of documents submitted by the Responder and his submission, it was observed that the Respondent had not availed any CENVAT/ITC, related to 'EPIC' project, in pre-GST regime. Also, the Respondent neither raised any demand nor received any advance for this project in Pre-GST period. Therefore, there was no pre-GST tax rate or ITC structure which could be compared with the post-GST tax rate and ITC. There was no availability of CENVAT to compare ITC which was available to the Respondent in the post-GST era. Hence, the base price in pre-GST era could not be computed to compare price change in post-GST period. It was also observed that the price charged for the said commercial units was for a new project developed and constructed by the Respondent after implementation of GST. Hence, it appeared that the anti-profiteering provisions were not applicable to the impugned project under investigation. j. It was also observed that the impugned project "EPIC" was a commercial project which was outside the definition of Residential Real Estate P....