AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1086
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "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 Authority is bound to examine and take suo moto cognizance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipient 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) The Respondent also relied upon the Order passed by this Authority in the matter of Shri Arjun Kumar Parwani & others Vs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. However, the Respondent had not classified his information/documents as confidential in terms of Rule 130 of the Rules. g. The DGAP had carefully scrutinized the Order received from the Authority, various....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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/change in rate of GST. Accordingly the Notification No. 03/2019-Central Tax (Rate) dated 29.03.2019 was not applicable to the impugned project. k. Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 case into play in the event when there was a reduction in the rate of tax or there was an increase in the benefit of ITC. In the present cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visions 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 present proceedings." Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its subsequent Order dated 10.01.2022 has extended the period(s) of limitation till 28.02.2022 and the relevant portion of the said Order is as follows:- "The Order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent Orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 Authority is bound to examine and take suo moto cognizance of the benefit of ITC which the Respondent is apparently liable to pass on to the buyers of the "Epic" project, as per the provisions of Section 171 (2) of the CGST Act, 2017, once it has been brought to its notice. Accordingly, the DGAP is directed to investigate the "Epic" project being executed by the Respondent and subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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) The Respondent also relied upon the Order passed by this Authority in the matter of Shri Arjun Kumar Parwani & others Vs. Signature Builders Private Limited, wherein it was held that: "The agreement between the above Applicant and the Respondent was executed on 13.12.2017. Therefore, it is apparent that the Applicant No. 1 had applied for allotment and was allotted the above flat after coming in to force of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017. Since th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uments/ 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. However, the Respondent had not classified his information/documents as confidential in terms of Rule 130 of the Rules. g. The DGAP had carefully scrutinized the Order received from the Authority, various replies of the Respondent and the documents/evidences on record. The main issues for determination, as per the DGAP were:- (i) Whether there was benefit of reduction in the rate of tax or ITC on the supply of Construction Service by the Respondent, on implementation of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and if so, (ii) Whether such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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/change in rate of GST. Accordingly the Notification No. 03/2019-Central Tax (Rate) dated 29.03.2019 was not applicable to the impugned project. k. Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 case into play in the event when there was a reduction in the rate of tax or there was an increase in the benefit of ITC. In the present case, since the project itself was launched after implementation of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, there was no pre-GST tax rate or ITC availability that could be compared with the post-GST tax rate and ITC, to determine whether there was any benefit that was required to be passed on by way of reduced price. l. From the above discuss....