AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 12 i.e. the DGAP after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, received an application under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017 filed by the Applicant No. 1 alleging profiteering in respect of construction service supplied by the Respondent. The Applicant No. 1 has submitted that he had booked Unit No. 2117 in the Respondent's project "SKA Green Arch", Greater Noida (West) under Prime Minister Awas Yojana (PMAY) and alleged that the Respondent had charged GST @12%. In his application, the Applicant No.1 also submitted that MRP of the flat had increased and the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC to him by way of commensurate reduction in the price on introduction of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. The DGAP in his Report dated 29.10.2021, inter-alia stated that:- i. The said application was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering. in its meeting, the minutes of which were received in the DGAP's office on 15.10.2020, whereby it was decided to forward the sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vi. In response to the notice dated 06.11.2020 and subsequent reminders, emails and summons issued by the DGAP to the Respondent, the Respondent replied and submitted documents/information vide letters and e-mails dated 08.01.2021, 25.01.2021, 25.02.2021,10.03.2021,16.03.2021, 06.04.2021, 28.06.2021, 14.07.2021, 15.07.2021, 23.07.2021, 29.07.2021, 09.08.2021, 18.08.2021,19.09.2021, 21.09.2021 and 27.10.2021. The submissions of the Respondent were summed up as follows: - a. The proceedings were initiated on the basis of an application received from the Applicant No. 1. The said Applicant No. 1 had purchased one flat in the project. Hence, the investigation could not go beyond the Applicant No, 1 and cover other customers also who had not questioned the benefit passed on to them. b. The Applicant No. 1 had booked flat after more than one year of implementation of GST, so the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 were not applicable. c. Since, there was reduction in rate of GST from 12% (after abatement of Land cost) to 8% (after abatement of Land cost), vide Notification No. 01/2018 dated 25.01.2018 under provision of GST law. the Applicant No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter 31.12.2017 i.e., post GST regime. No completion certificate has been received for the said phase till date. Since, Phase-2 of the project consisting of two towers namely Tulip and Zinnia was not under construction on or before 01.07.2017 and no purchase, construction or sale activities were started for Phase-2, hence, there was neither any sale nor any ITC was available for the said phase on or before GST implementation i.e., 01.07.2017. The above fact could be verified from the documents uploaded by the Respondent from time to time on RERA website like progress report of the project, sales detail of the project and Chartered Engineers certificate etc., the contractor's Work Order issued for the said phase and 1st RA bill provided by the contractor for those Towers and from the 1st booking for the Phase-2 where it was clearly mentioned in the payment plan which was part of the agreement that when raft work would be started, the buyer had to pay certain percentage of the total sale value. The Respondent had raised invoices for the same mile stone on 17.07.2018. The Contractors bill of the said work had been issued on 06.10.2018. This clearly showed that the raft work which w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g. Copy of registered deed for purchase of land. h. Copy of Occupancy Certificate for Phase I. i. Copy of allotment letters and demand letters issued to Applicant and other home buyers. j. Details of sold and unsold units. k. Details of applicable tax rates, pre-GST and post-GST. I. Details of input and output VAT, Service Tax and GST for the project "SKA Green Arch" during the period April 2016 to October 2020. m. Copies of cheques dated 14.09.2020 and 20.09.2020, issued by the Respondent to the Applicant No. 1 for refund of Rs. 1.39,932/-. n. Summary of Input Tax Credit. o. List of home buyers in the project "SKA Green Arch". viii. Vide the notice dated 06.11.2020, the Respondent was informed that if any information/documents was 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. The Respondent claimed that all information/documents submitted by him were to be treated as confidential. ix. The above said reference from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering along with subject application of the App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reafter he was registered with GST Department vide Registration No. 09AAGCP9220N1ZW for providing taxable service under the category of construction services. Vide his above submissions, the Respondent contended that the proceedings were initiated on the basis of an application received from the Applicant No. 1. The said Applicant No. 1 had purchased one flat in the Project. Hence, the investigation could not go beyond the Applicant No. 1 and cover other customers also who had not questioned the benefit passed on to them. In this regard, it was observed that Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act. 2017 envisage that Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of ITC shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices." It was clear from perusal of the above provision that it mentioned "benefit of ITC shall be passed on to the recipient" which did not mean that the benefit of ITC was to be taken only for the applicant or the complainant. Further, the above Section mentions "any supply" i.e., each taxable supply made to each recipient thereby clearly indicating that every customer/recipient was eligible to get his due benefit. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed details of both the Phases of the Project. Since, for both the Phases there was single RERA registration which was obtained in pre-GST period. Phase Il could not be spared from the current investigation on the mere basis that the same was launched in post-GST period. Hence, the contention of the Respondent in this regard was not considered and investigation was carried out for both the phases of the Project. xiv. The Respondent had also contended that he had paid taxes in excess in GST regime as compared to Service Tax regime. In this regard, it was observed that the Respondent had claimed that his cost has increased due to increase in rate of tax on his input services. However, the Respondent had not provided any data to quantify the extra cost incurred in GST period to be adjusted against the amount of profiteering. xv. The Respondent had also claimed that he had been paying VAT/Sales Tax on purchase of goods for which input credit was not available to the Respondent for providing services under head of construction of residential services but the Respondent had been claiming the said VAT/Sales Tax as expenditure and getting benefit of Income Tax at applicable rate. Now,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a percentage of the turnover that was available to the Respondent during the pre-GST period (April, 2016 to June, 2017) was 0.76% and during the post-GST period (July, 2017 to October, 2021), it was 9.13% in Project "SKA Green Arch". This clearly confirmed that in post-GST, the Respondent had been benefitted with additional ITC to the tune of 8.37% [9.13% (-) 0.76%] of the turnover. xvii. The Respondent had claimed that the price quoted to the post GST customers was inclusive of the benefit of ITC under GST Laws. The application form which was signed by all home buyers mentions as the following: "The Cost of Apartment/Unit was arrived after reduction on account of GST ITC Benefit." However, in order to examine this aspect, all application forms in respect to all the buyers who had booked flats in the post GST period were required to be scrutinized. As per the homebuyers list submitted by the Respondent it was observed that 642 number of buyers whose turnover was Rs. 1,84,83,74,531 had purchased the Apartments/Units from the Respondent in post-GST period. As such all the Application Forms in respect of said 642 home buyers, which were signed by the buyers had been sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....J=G*(1-D) or 91.63% of G 46,51,43,356 12. GST @12% K=J*B 5,58,17,200 13. Commensurate demand price L=J+K 52,09,60,537 14. Excess Collection of Demand or Profiteering Amount M=I-L 4,75,87,468 xix. From Table- B' above, it was clear that the additional ITC of 8.37% of the turnover should have resulted in the commensurate reduction in the base price as well as cum-tax price. Therefore, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, the benefit of such additional ITC was required to be passed on to the recipients. It was evident from the above calculation explained in Table-B on the basis of the aforesaid CENVAT/ITC availability pre and post-GST and the details of the amount collected by the Respondent from the flat/home buyers in respect of the flats sold by the Respondent during the period 01.07.2017 to 31.10.2020, the benefit of ITC that needed to be passed on by the Respondent to the buyers of flats came to Rs. 4,75,87,468/- which included 12% GST on the base amount of Rs. 4,24,88,811/-. The flat buyers and unit no. wise break-up of this amount was given in Annexure-24 of the Report. xx. The Respondent in his submissions stated that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be passed on by the Respondent to 206 homebuyers (Sr. 1, 2 & 3 of above Table-'C') by an amount of Rs. 4,59,14,904/-. The details of these amounts were given in Annexures-26, 27 & 28 of the Report. 3. Therefore, the DGAP concluded that:- i. On the basis of above, it had been observed that the Respondent had had been received. 5 had denied and rest 187 buyers did not respond. Therefore, after considering the response of the 14 buyers who had confirmed the receipt of benefit of ITC of GST from the Respondent, it was observed that the Respondent was yet to pass on an additional amount of Rs. 4,59,14,904/- as mentioned at Sr. 1, 2 & 3 of the Table-C which included both the profiteered amount @ 8.37% of the base price and GST on the said profiteered amount from the 206 flat buyers. These 206 recipients were identifiable as per the documents provided by the Respondent, giving the names along with unit allotted to such recipients and hence, the Respondent was required to pass on the benefit of ITC of GST to these buyers. Based on the details of the outward supply of Construction services submitted by the Respondent, it was also observed that the Respondent has suppli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o them. It was submitted that keeping in view the fact that Respondent had already passed on the eligible benefit to each and every buyer (as submitted above), the Authority must conduct a proper verification of the facts and relevant records related to the buyers/customers who did not respond/reply, so that it could be ascertained that whether they were in receipt of the due benefit or not. iv. That comparison of ratios of ITCs to turnovers of pre-GST regime with GST regime was not the correct mechanism for calculation of the profiteering amount. v. That in absence of specified procedure and mechanism of calculation of profiteering, the proceedings initiated against the Respondent were arbitrary and thus liable to be dropped. In this regard, reliance was placed on the cases of Eternit Everest Ltd. Vs. UOI, 1997 (89) E.L.T. 28 (Mad.). vi. Without prejudice to above, investigation proceedings cannot go beyond the application submitted by the Applicant No. 1. vii. Without prejudice to above, the alleged profiteering amount had been incorrectly inflated by adding GST and the same was not sustainable. 7. Copy of the Respondent's submissions dated 13.04.2022 was supplied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... iv. With reference to page No. 33 of the Respondent's submissions, by referring to section 54, and shifting burden on to government to refund the taxes to customer was not tenable as burden to refund the taxes for reduction in prices lies on supplier of service/goods. 8. Further, the DGAP by letter dated 09.05.2022 filed his clarifications vide which the DGAP has clarified:- i. That in the erstwhile pre-GST regime, various taxes and cesses were being levied by the Central Government and the State Governments, which got subsumed in the GST. Out of these taxes, the ITC of some taxes was not being allowed in the erstwhile tax regime. For example. the ITC of Central Sales Tax, which was being collected and appropriated by the States, was not admissible. Similarly, in case of construction service, while the ITC of Service Tax was available, the ITC of Central Excise Duty paid on inputs was not available to the service provider. Such input taxes, the credit of which was not allowed in the erstwhile tax regime, used to get embedded in the cost of the goods or services supplied, resulting in increased price. With the introduction of GST with effect from 01.07.2017, all these t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, the profiteering computed in the instant case was entirely based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the data/information provided by the Respondent. iii. That Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 stated that "Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of ITC shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices." It was clear from the perusal of the above provision that it mentioned "benefit of ITC shall be passed on to the recipient" which did not mean that the benefit of ITC was to be restricted only to the applicant or the complainant or to the alleged project. Therefore, the benefit of ITC had to be passed on to each buyer/recipient. Further, the above Section mentioned "any supply" i.e., each taxable supply made to each recipient thereby clearly indicating that every customer/recipient was eligible to get his due benefit. In other words, every recipient of goods or services had to get the due benefit from the supplier and hence, this benefit had to be calculated for each and every service supplied by the Respondent. 9. Further, the DGAP's clarifications dated 09.05.2022 were supplied to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e hearing, held on 21.06.2022 via video conferencing, was attended by the Applicants except the Applicant No. 1. During the hearing, Applicant No. 2 and 3 reiterated their earlier submissions dated 03.05.2022. Further, copy of the Respondent's submissions dated 14.06.2022 was supplied to the Applicants and the DGAP for their replies and clarifications under Rule 133 (2A) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 11. The Applicant No. 2 & 3 by e-mail dated 16.07.2022 have filed their submissions against the Respondent's submissions dated 14.06.2022 vide which they stated that:- i. With reference to point No. 5- It was irrelevant when the Project started. The time of supply in GST regime is when GST was applicable. Hence its useless to create complexities by emphasizing on pre GST regime. ii. Reply to part D of point No. 6- All individuals who had purchased the property and were demanding their right had invested hard earned money and secondly, the Respondent won't be dishonest at giving incorrect information as to non-receipt of benefits. iii. Reply to part F of point No. 6- The comparison of ratio of ITC to turnover was a very correct method as there were a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; cannot be included for the purpose of calculation of profiteered amount as no activity viz. construction, purchase, sale etc., has been done by the Respondent w.r.t. the said project during Pre-GST regime. It was claimed that considering the submissions made above, the total profiteering amount as calculated by DGAP to the tune of Rs 4,75,87,468/- would be reduced to Rs. 2,70,16,059/-. In support of his submissions, the Respondent has enclosed copies of consolidated progress report of Project, RERA Registration certificate and Chartered Engineer's Certificate dated 15.03.2018. In this regard, the Authority finds that the "SKA Green Arch" Project was launched in pre-GST regime. This Authority finds that, the Respondent has constructed this Project in two phases. In first phase, two towers i.e. Aster Tower and Orchid Tower and commercial spaces have been constructed and in the second phase two towers i.e., Tulip Tower and Zinnia Tower have been constructed. The Respondent has obtained single RERA registration for the entire "SKA Green Arch" Project. Since, for all the towers i.e., Aster Tower, Orchid Tower, Tulip Tower and Zinnia Tower, there is single RERA registration, the wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le to be dropped. In this regard, the Authority finds that the above contention of the Respondent is without substance as the 'Procedure and Methodology' for passing on the benefits of reduction in the rate of tax and ITC or for computation of the profiteered amount has been outlined in Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act. 2017 itself which provides that "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." The Authority finds that it is clear from the plain reading of the above provision that it mentions "reduction in the rate of tax or benefit of ITC" which means that if any reduction in the rate of tax is ordered by the Central and the State Governments or a registered supplier avails benefit of additional ITC post-GST implementation, the same has to be passed on by him to his recipients since both the above benefits are being given by the above Governments out of their scarce and precious tax revenue. It also provides that the above benefits are to be passed on any supply i.e. on each product or unit of construction or service to every buyer and in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dge of accounts and mathematics as per the Explanation attached to Section 171. 20. To further explain the legislative intent behind the above provision, this Authority has been authorized to determine the `Procedure and Methodology' which has been done by it vide its Notification dated 28.03.2018 under Rule 126 of the CGST Rules, 2017. However, no fixed mathematical formula, in respect of all the Sectors or the products or the services, can be set for passing on the above benefits or for computation of the profiteered amount, as the facts of each case are different. In the case of one real estate project, date of start and completion of the project, price of the flat/shop, mode of payment of price or instalments, stage of completion of the project, rates of taxes pre and post GST implementation, amount of CENVAT credit and ITC available, total saleable area, area sold and the taxable turnover received before and after the GST implementation would always be different from the other project and hence the amount of benefit of additional ITC to be passed on in respect of one project would not be similar to the other project. Therefore, no set procedure or mathematical methodolo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....017 and Rule 122, 123, 129, and 136 of the CGST Rules, 2017 have provided elaborate machinery in the form of this Authority, the Standing and Screening Committees, the DGAP and a large number of field officers of the Central and the State Taxes to implement the anti-profiteering provisions. Therefore, the contention of the Respondent that, no machinery has been provided to implement the above measures is untenable. 22. The Respondent has also contended that without prejudice to his submissions, investigation proceedings cannot go beyond the application submitted by the Applicant No. 1. It is submitted that the Report should be restricted to the Applicant No. 1 only who has filed the application to concerned committee/officer. It is clear from the perusal of Section 171 (1) that -benefit of ITC shall be passed on to the recipient" which does not mean that the benefit of ITC is to be restricted only to the Applicant or the complainant. Therefore, the benefit of ITC has to be passed on to each buyer/recipient. Further, the above Section mentions any supply" which expands the scope to cover all supplies: where tax reduction or ITC benefit has not been passed on. In other words, ever....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore the DGAP nor this Authority in support of his above claim. Therefore, the above contention of the Respondent is not acceptable. 25. Further, the Applicants No. 2 & 3 vide e-mails dated 03.05.2022 and 16.07.2022 have filed their submissions/arguments against the Respondent's submissions dated 13.04.2022 and 14.06.2022 respectively. However, all the contentions raised by the Respondent in his submissions have already been addressed and replied in the above paras. The Authority finds that the Applicants have not submitted any argument against the DGAP's Report. Further, this Authority finds that the DGAP after considering all facts and submissions of the Respondent has concluded that during the period 01.07.2017 to 31.10.2020, the Respondent has realized an additional amount of Rs. 4,75,87,468/- which includes both the profiteered amount @8.37% of the taxable amount (base price) and GST on the said profiteered amount from the 206 customers/buyers. 26. It is clear from the plain reading of Section 171 (1) that it deals with two situations:- one relating to the passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax and the second on the passing on the benefit of the I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be passed on in respect of the Project "SKA Green Arch" of the Respondent. 30. This Authority also orders that the profiteered amount of Rs. 4,75,87,468/- for the Project "SKA Green Arch" along with the interest @ 18% from the date of receiving of the profiteered amount from the home buyers/customers/recipients of supply till the date of passing the benefit of ITC shall be paid/passed on by the Respondent within a period of 3 months from the date of this Order failing which it shall be recovered as per the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. 31. It is also evident from the above narration of facts that the Respondent has denied the benefit of ITC to the customers/flat buyers/recipients in his Project "SKA Green Arch" in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has committed an offence under Section 171 (3A) of the above Act. This Authority finds that Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 has been inserted in the CGST Act, 2017 vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019, and the same became operational w.e.f. 01.01.2020. As the period of investigation was 01.07.2017 to 31 10.2020. therefore. the Authority finds that the Respondent is liable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent has profiteered in the instant project, there is every likelihood that he has profiteered in other projects also under the GSTIN 09AAGCP9220NIZW. The Authority has reasons to believe that the Respondent may have resorted to profiteering in the other projects also and hence, it directs the DGAP under Rule 133(5) to investigate all the other projects of the Respondent under the same GST registration which have not yet been investigated from the perspective of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and submit complete investigation report for all the Projects under this single GST Registration. 36. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide its Order dated 10.02.2020 in the case of Nestle India Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India has held that:- "We also observe that prima facie, it appears to us that the limitation of period of six months provided in Rule 133 of the CGST Rules. 2017 within which the authority should make its order from the date of receipt of the report of the Directorate General of Anti Profiteering, appears to be directory in as much as no consequence of non-adherence of the said period of six months is prescribed either in the CGST Act or the rules framed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Achal Singh 402 210,924 51 Mr. Anup Mani Tripathi 403 52 Mr. Laxmi Narayan Paswan 404 253,159 53 Mrs. Sangeeta Kumari 405 * | 54 Mr. Varun Prakash Upadhyay 406 * 55 Mrs. Ratnesh 407 56 Sanjay Kumar Panday 408 57 Mr. Raj Kumar 409 242,563 58 Mr. Kesar Singh Karki 410 233,799 59 Ms. Surabhi Vatsa 411 60 Mr. Prashant Kumar Jha 412 * 61 Dr. Narayan Dutta 414 307,105 62 Mr. Kashi Nath Rai 415 226,743 63 Mr. Tarun Kumar 416 249,934 69 69 505 Mr. Jatin Dhupar 70 Mr. Shivlal Khandelwal 506 201,081 71 Mr. Yashpal Singh Negi 507 197,094 * 72 Mrs. Suruchi Thakur 508 * 73 Mr. Parmatma Prasad 509 74 Mr. Santosh Kumar 510 257,242 75 Mr. Arjun Sharma 511 243,603 76 * Mr. Vikram Singh 512 77 Mr. Rohit Singh 514 327,973 78 Mr. Raghwendra Kumar 515 262,034 79 Mr. Shubham Khare 516 248,218 80 * Mr. Ashish Maheshwari 517 81 Mr. Sudhir Kumar Trivedi 601 82 Mrs. Ritu Pal 602 209,869 83 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1003 200,336 148 Mr. Naresh Chandra 1004 246,005 149 Mr. Amit Sharan 1005 241,930 150 Mr. Ananata Singh 1006 * 151 Mr. Naveen Raina 1007 198,578 152 Mr. Amit Kumar 1008 224,306 153 Mrs. Hima Manral 1009 257,538 154 Mrs. Deepa Singh 1010 237,805 155 Mr. Sunit Kumar Shrivastava 1011 242,563 156 Mr. Arun Kumar 1012 157 Mrs. Soniya Rathore 1014 314,035 158 Mrs. Rupali Srivastava 1015 159 Mr. Naresh Bhandari 1016 244,187 160 Mr. Abhishek Dutta 1017 241,339 161 Mr. Love Kumar 1101 * 162 Mr. Niranjan Singh 1102 197,228 163 Mr. Santosh Kumar 1103 190,535 164 Mr. Sumanshu Ashta 1104 240,413 165 Mr. Vikas Garg 1105 221,730 166 Mrs. Anuja Singh 1106 * 167 Mr. Ranjeet Kumar 1107 168,420 168 Mr. Mohit Khulbe 1108 203,823 169 Mr. Surya Prakash Mishra 1109 239,047 170 Mr. Sumit Kumar Gautam 1110 240,687 171 Mr. Amit Pratap Singh 1111 247,143 470 177 * Mr. Basant Kumar Soni 1201 178 Mr. Praveen ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. Harish Chandra Singh 1612 309,490 237 Miss. Shweta Merilyn Tigga 1614 298,598 238 Mr. Lalit Panwar 1615 * 239 Mr. Praveen Kumar Thakur 1616 226,019 240 Mr. Ghanendra Prasad Kandwal 1617 238,549 241 Mr. Vishal 1701 * 242 Mr. Somdutt Upadhyay 1702 184,636 243 Mrs. Priya Patil 1703 * 244 249 Mr. Bansh Raj Shukla 1709 239,355 250 Mr. N.N. Pandey 1710 239,355 251 Mrs. Sikha Deka 1711 243,477 252 Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra 1712 253 Mrs. Minakshi 1714 300,288 254 Mrs. Himanshu Bishnoi 1715 255 Mr. Ashutosh Sharma 1716 221,470 256 Mr. Virender Kumar Tyagi 1717 239,047 257 * Mr. Rakesh Kumar 1801 258 Mr. Pravin Kumar 1802 191,589 259 * Mr. Prabhat Mohan 1803 260 Mr. Manish Kumar 1804 232,195 261 Mr. Ravikesh Kumar Pandey 1805 * 262 Mrs. Vijeta Singh * 1806 263 Mr. Raj Mangal Giri 1807 * 264 Mr. Kapil Deo Yadav 1808 265 Mr. Devi Ratan Tiwari 1809 * 266 Mr. Aginvesh Mishra 1810 156,224 267 M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 Mr. Rahul Choudhary 2212 * 333 * Mrs. Tanvi Bhatia 2214 334 Mr. Vijay Kumar Poddar 2215 222,338 335 Mr. Bhartendu Gautam 2216 228,267 336 Mr. Virender Kumar 2217 * 337 Mr. Hilal Ahmad Bhat 2301 * 338 Mr. Ranjit Burnwal 2302 174,364 339 * Mr. Naveen Sharma 2303 340 Mrs. Suman Goyal 2304 * 341 Mr. Neeraj Kumar Agarwal 2305 231,018 342 Mr. Ramraj Kushwaha 2306 * 343 Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta 2307 180,093 344 Mr. Manoranjan Prasad 2309 * 345 Mrs. Sudha Mishra 2310 221,988 346 Mrs. Zahida Tabassum 2311 * 347 Mr. Mohd Dilshad Khan 2312 * 348 Mr. Vivek Srivastava 2314 * 349 Mr. Mohammed Nauroz Ahmad 2315 222,374 350 Mrs. Sangeeta Jha 2316 220,229 351 Mrs. Famida Saifi 2317 * 352 357 Mr. Chandra Shekhar Menaria 2406 191,378 358 Mr. Aayush Verma 2407 186,288 359 * Mr. Sushant Kumar 2408 360 * Mr. Divya Batra 2409 361 Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh 2410 225,674 362 Mr. Dinesh Chandra Gayari 2411 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mr. Mohammad Ashraf 2808 121 429 Mr. Shashi Prakash 2815 212,038 430 Mrs. Sushma Kumari 2816 212,270 431 Mrs. Nupur Jain 2817 * 432 Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma 2901 433 Mrs. Jyoti Jayswal 2902 434 Mrs. Seema 2903 * 435 * Mrs. Leela Bhagat 2904 436 Mr. Krishna Chandra Joshi 2905 * 437 * Mr. Habibul Islam 2906 438 Mr. Punit Kumar Rai 2907 * 439 Mr. Gaurav Kumar Srivastava 2908 * 440 Mr. C. S. Gautam 2909 * 441 Mrs. Anita Rani Jena 2910 442 Mr. Nitin Kumar 2911 * 443 Mr. Anurag Singh 2912 444 Mr. Mahender Pal 2914 276,755 445 Mr. Rupesh Kumar Singh 2915 219,730 446 Mrs. Pallavi Bisht 2916 212,621 447 Mr. Rajnish Srivastava 2917 448 Mr. Rajnish Kumar Singh 3001 * 449 Mr. Abhijit Chowdhury 3002 174,694 450 Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey 3003 * 451 Mr. Sneha Shree 3004 452 Mr. Naresh Chandra 3005 453 Mr. Mukesh 3006 * 454 Mr. Debaraj Naik 3007 * 455 Mr. Shantan Srivastava 3008 * 456 Mr. M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 524 Mr. Anil Kumar Shukla 421 * 525 Mr. Shashi Bhushan Prasad Yadav 423 * 526 Mrs. Madhu Rani 424 * 527 Mrs. Rinki Singh 425 * 528 Mrs. Anita Kushwah 427 * 529 Mr. Amit Kumar Raghav 428 * 530 Mr. Harshit Goyal 429 * 531 Mr. Anil Kumar Gangwal 430 * 532 537 * Mr. Kanti Kumar Tyagi 525 538 Mrs. Nalini Rai 526 * 539 * Mrs. Suman Kumari 540 Mr. Amit Kumar 527 529 * 541 Mr. Navin Kumar Rajak 531 * 542 Mr. Abhishek Kumar 532 * 543 Mr. Deep Narayan Yadav 533 * 544 Mrs. Preeti 618 * 545 Mr. Nripendra Kumar 619 * 546 Mr. Avinash Kumar 620 * 547 Mr. Satendra Singh 621 * 548 Mrs. Swati Sharma 622 * 549 Mr. Hitesh Kumar Dogra 623 * 550 Mrs. Anita Saini 624 * 551 Mr. Rohit Kumar Das 625 * 552 Mr. Vivek Kumar 626 * * 553 Mrs. Neeru Burman 554 Mr. Sandeep Garg 627 628 * * 555 Mrs. Manjari Tiwari 629 556 * Mr. Manish Kumar Rai 632 557 * Mr. Rajeev Ranjan ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1128 628 * Mrs. Beenita Kumari 1129 629 * Mr. Sunil Chandra Saha 1130 630 * Mrs. Seema Jha 1131 631 * Mr. Munna Kumar 1132 632 * Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta 1133 633 * Mr. Akhil Kumar Rawat 1218 634 * Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh 1219 635 Mrs. Mamta Kumari 1220 636 Mr. Sameer Bansal 1221 637 * Mrs. Latika Gupta 1222 638 * Mrs. Varsha Vishnoi 1223 639 Mrs. Mamta Tewari 1224 640 ^ 645 Mr. Deepak Sharma 1230 * * 646 Mr. Alok Kumar Mishra 1231 * 647 Mr. Navin Kumar 1232 * 648 Mr. Chandresh Kumar 1233 * 649 Mr. Shoban Kalia 1418 * 650 Mrs. Sujata Kain 1419 * 651 Mr. Bhaskar Kanseri 1420 652 Mrs. Soniya Banarji 1421 * 653 Mr. Umesh Kumar 654 Mrs. Tanvi Jain 1422 1423 * * 655 Mr. Kambod Singh 1424 * 656 Mr. Mukul Sharma 1425 * 657 Mr. Pappu Sharma 1427 658 Mr. Kumar Abhishek 1428 * 659 Mr. Himanshu Soni 1429 * 660 Mr. Kumar Jyotirmay 1430 * 661 Mr. Ramesh Kumar Kaul ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. Pintu Kumar 1924 * 730 Mr. Kumar Pranav Kaushik 1925 * 731 Mr. Rohit Mahore 732 Mr. Abhishek Sharma 1926 1927 * * 733 Mr. Shivajeet Banarji 1928 * 734 Mrs. Poonam Chopra 1929 * 735 Mrs. Nidhi Gupta 1930 * 736 Mr. Shashank Ji Srivastava 1933 * 737 Mr. Ramkishor Sharma 2018 738 Mr. Bal Krishna Jha 2019 * 739 Mrs. Nidhi Rawat 2020 740 Mr. Rajendra Mahto 2021 * 741 Mr. Amit Kumar 2022 * 742 Mr. Devashish Rana 2023 * 743 Mr. Siddarath 2024 * 744 Mr. Mohit Kaushik 2025 745 Ms. Meenu Singh 2027 746 Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh 2028 * 747 Mr. Kapil Walia 2029 749 753 Shivani 2120 * 754 Mr. Pragati Srivastava 2121 * 755 Mr. Karan Bedi 2122 * 756 Mr. Niraj Kumar Gupta 2123 * 757 Mr. Jitin Arora 2124 * 758 Mr. Shubham Shukla 2125 759 Mr. Mudit Kumar 2126 * 760 Mrs. Prachi Agrawal 2127 * 761 Mr. Karan Jetly 2128 * 762 Mr. Benktesh Kumar 763 Mrs. Ruby Thakur 2129 2130 ....