TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 553
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plication filed by the Applicant No. 1 alleging profiteering by the Respondent No. 1 in respect of purchase of flat no. HR/II/505 (3BHK + 2T) in the Respondent No. 1's project "Siddha Eden Lakeville", situated at Lake View Park Road, Banhooghly, Kolkata, West Bengal-700108 on 17.09.2016. The Applicant No.1 alleged that the Respondent No. 1 had not passed on the benefit of ITC to him by way of commensurate reduction in prices and charged GST @12% on the amount due to him against payments. 2. The DGAP vide his Report dated 31.12.2020 has inter-alia submitted the following points :- a. The Applicant No. 1 submitted the following documents along with the application: i. E-mails of correspondence with Respondent No. 1 requesting to pass on the benefit of ITC. ii. Copies of Demand Letters and Allotment letter. 4 b. On receipt of the aforesaid reference from the Standing Committee on Anti- profiteering on 09.10.2019, a Notice under Rule 129 of the Rules was issued by the DGAP on 22.10.2019, calling upon the Respondent No. 1 to reply as to whether he admitted whether the benefit of ITC had not been passed on to the recipients by way of commensurat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2019 and subsequent reminders and summons, the Respondent No. 1 replied vide letters/emails dated 05.11.2019, 06.11.2019, 13.11.2019, 25.11.2019, 06.12.2019, 28.02.2020, 13.03.2020, 18.03.2020, 19.03.2020, 05.05.2020, 25.05.2020, 08.06.2020, 05.11.2020, 06.11.2020, 10.11.2020, 18.11.2020 and 24.11.2020. The Reply of the Respondent No. 1 was summed up as follows:- i. In the subject project i.e. "Siddha Eden Lakeville, he was engaged as Landowner whereas, the Developer was M/s. Siddha Real Estate Private Limited. Further, all expenses in relation to construction activities of the project were borne out exclusively by Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 1 was neither incurring any expenditure nor claiming any GST ITC in respect of the impugned project. ii. The Respondent No. 1 submitted that Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides 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. However, he was not providing the Construction Service directly and the same was provided by the Developer. He was acting as the seller for his area allocation only in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... construction of various projects and also providing various other services such as work contract services, business support services to associated enterprises, maintenance services etc. ii. The Respondent No. 2 had furnished the block wise details of the impugned project "Siddha Eden Lake Ville" in table -'A' below:- Table 'A' S.No. Blocks Phase RERA No. Eden's share Siddha's share Total Area (in Sq. Ft.) Unit Type Super Area Unit Type Super Area Unit Type Super Area 1 ISLET Phase I HIRA/P/NOR/2018/000183 41 51,247 90 1,09,815 131 1,61,062 2 LAGOON Phase I 50 57,821 99 1,13,664 149 1,71,485 3 MARINA Phase I 53 63,255 96 1,13,872 149 1,77,127 4 OCEANIA Phase I 59 67,710 90 1,03,775 149 1,71,485 5 STREAM Phase I 31 56,300 42 77,857 73 1,34,157 6 HARMONY BLOCK-1 Phase I 32 29,544 45 42,289 77 71,833 7 HARMONY BLOCK-2 Phase I 32 29,544 47 44,334 79 73,878 8 PROMENADE Phase I 60 62,380 87 90,707 14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....veloper. Further, as per clause 14.3 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 08.05.2015 requires that "Siddha shall join the deed of transfer in favour of Eden's Transferees and shall execute and register the same in his capacity as a confirming party" Therefore, the Agreement was a Tripartite agreement where the Respondent No. 2 was a necessary party and thus, participation of the Respondent No. 2 in the said transactions was undeniable and the Respondent No. 2's submission that he was not a party to documents entered with the Applicant No. 1 was incorrect. Further, in the impugned project, the CENVAT/ITC on the purchase of inputs, input services and capital goods was availed by the Respondent No. 2 for the whole project including the purchases made towards the unit allotted to the Applicant No. 1. Therefore, the Respondent No. 2 being a GST registered person was also statutory required to comply with the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and cannot deny passing on the benefit pertaining to Landowner's share in the project. Further, profiteering, if any, had to be computed considering the whole project as a whole irrespective of allocat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot fall within the ambit of this investigation and the Respondent No. 2 was required to recalibrate the selling price of such units to be sold to the prospective buyers by considering the net benefit of additional ITC available to him post-GST. P. With respect to the allegation of profiteering, on the basis of information and documents submitted by the Respondent No. 2, it was observed that prior to 01.07.2017, i.e. before the GST was introduced, the Respondent No. 2 was eligible to avail CENVAT credit of Service Tax paid on Services but no credit was available in respect of Central Excise Duty and VAT paid on the inputs. However, post-GST, the Respondent No. 2 could avail ITC of GST paid on all the inputs and the input services including the sub-contracts. From the information submitted by the Respondent No. 2 for the period April, 2016 to September, 2019, the details of the ITC availed by him, his turnover from the project "Siddha Eden Lake Ville Phase-I", and the ratios of ITC's to turnovers, during the pre-GST (April, 2016 to June, 2017) and post-GST (July, 2017 to September, 2019) periods, have been furnished by the DGAP in Table-'B' below:- Table-'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ratio of ITC availed/available to the turnover in the pre-GST and post-GST periods as well as the turnover, the recalibrated base price and the excess realization (profiteering) during the post-GST period, has been furnished by the DGAP in Table- 'C' below: Table-'C' (Amount in Rs.) S.No. Particulars Post-GST 1. Period A 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019 2. Output GST Rate (%) B 12.00% 3. Ratio of CENVAT credit/ ITC to Total Turnover as per table - 'C' above (%) C 6.85% 4. Increase in ITC availed post-GST(%) D=6.85% less 1.16% 5.69% 5. Analysis of Increase in input tax credit: Noticee (Landowner) C-Noticee (Developer) Total 6. Total Base Price raised/collected during July, 2017 to September, 2019 (Rs.) E 64,55,63,988 89,24,10,569 1,53,79,74,557 7. Less: Base Price raised during July, 2017 to September, 2019 (Flats sold after 01.07.2017 and Price negotiated after ITC adjustments) F - 49,86,40,732 49,86,40,732 8. Net Base Price raised/collected during July, 2017 to September, 2019 (Rs.) G=E-F 64,55,63,988 39,37,69,837 1,03,93,33,825 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 1 & 2, it was observed that the said service had been supplied in the State of West Bengal only. u. The above computation of profiteering was with respect to 535 home buyers from whom consideration value had been raised/received by the Respondent No. 1 & 2 during the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019 (excluding the flats sold by the Respondent No. 2 post 01.07.2017). Whereas the Respondent No. 1 & 2 had booked total of 723 units in the whole project as on 30.09.2019, however no demands were raised from 44 home buyers, during the post-GST period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019. Therefore, if the ITC in respect of these 44 units was considered to calculate profiteering in respect of 535 units where demands had been raised after GST, the ITC as a percentage of turnover might be erroneous. Furthermore, the Respondent No. 1 & 2 had submitted that effective from 01.07.2017, they had sold 144 flats at the rates agreed by the customers and the consideration for such units had already factored benefit of ITC. The Respondent No. 2 claimed that Section 171 of the CGST could be applied only on the units the prices of which had been agreed before 01.07.2017 i.e. pre-GST customers since....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....164/- was required to be returned to such eligible recipients. w. The present investigation covered the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019. Profiteering, if any, for the period post September, 2019, had not been examined as the exact quantum of ITC that would be available to the Respondent No. 1 & 2 in future could not be determined at this stage, when the Respondent No. 2 was continuing to avail ITC in respect of the present project. x. The DGAP has concluded that the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, requiring 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" had been contravened by the Respondent No. 1 the Respondent No. 2 in the present case. 3. The above Report was carefully considered by this Authority and a Notice dated 05.01.2021 was issued to the Respondent No. 1 & No. 2 to explain why the Report dated 31.12.2020 furnished by the DGAP should not be accepted and there liability for profiteering in violation of the provisions of Section 171 should not be fixed. The Respondent No. 1 was directed to file written sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been further emphasized in Clause 18.6 of the Development Agreement that:- "Siddha shall construct the Said Complex at his own cost, risk and responsibility, by adhering to the Revised Building Plan and applicable laws and attending to all notices issued by concerned authorities" f. That he was not incurring any cost related to construction and therefore no ITC related to construction had been availed for the said Project, no question of benefit in lieu of excess ITC availment should ensue. Further, any such Benefit enjoyed by the Respondent No. 2 had not been passed on to him neither in cash nor in kind i.e. by means of revision of percentage of allocated flats. Therefore, landowner could only pass on the benefit if the Respondent No. 2 passes on commensurate benefit to him. g. A similar case of Sattva Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs DGAP dated 14/06/2019, the Authority upheld the mechanism of DGAP to compute the amount of benefit as per the above referred mechanism i.e. availment of ITC to Turnover ratio in pre and post regime. Further, since it was an Allocation agreement between the landowner and the developer, the authority also ordered to pass on the benefi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst the Respondent No. 1 and not against him and the flat booked by the Applicant No.1 was pertaining to Respondent No. l's share of units. Therefore, he could not be covered under the investigation proceedings initiated by the DGAP. d. In this regard, he has referred Rule 129 of CGST Rules, 2017 and in the light of the above provisions, the DGAP could not conduct investigation against a third party who was not a supplier to the recipient. Thus, the anti-profiteering proceedings against the Respondent No. 2 should be dropped. e. He was only a conforming party in the agreement entered by Respondent No. 1 and Applicant No. 1. The same had been duly mentioned in clause 14.3 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 08.05.2015. The said clause provided that "Siddha shall join the deed of transfer in favour of Eden's Transferees and shall execute and register the same in his capacity as a confirming party". f. As per Section 2(93) of the CGST Act, the person who was not liable to pay consideration to him could not be said to be his "recipient" for the supplies made by it. The Applicant No. 1 was liable to pay consideration to Respondent No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed into Joint Development Agreement for a single project. The methodology adopted by the DGAP had violated the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act. j. ITC was not dependent of Turnover. The ITC was allowed in all cases for utilisation towards payment of output tax only. However, that by itself did not establish any direct relation with the turnover. ITC might be availed over a period of time without any output tax. Subsequently, output tax might be paid using accumulated ITC. Similarly, there was a possibility that output tax was discharged in cash first (in case of receipt of advance for services) and ITC might be availed later. Merely because ITC was utilized for payment of output tax could not establish any direct relation between the two. He still depend on different activities, viz. ITC based on the taxable expenditure incurred, and output tax based on the milestone billing to customers. The turnover reflected the amount collected by him as per payment or booking plans issued by it which was purely based on market driven strategy. On the contrary, the ITC had accrued to him based on actual cost incurred by has while undertaking the development of a project. Thus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 997/2021) vide which the Court was pleased to direct the Respondents to verify whether there were any directions issued u/r 133(5) in respect of other homebuyers. o. The analogy drawn by the DGAP by reading the phrase "any supply" in Rule 129 was irrelevant. Further, the phrase "any supply" had been used in context of reduction in rate of supplies and not for the benefit of ITC. P. He collected from his customers not only value of taxable construction services, rather he also collected value of land from his customers. Further, Sale of land and, subject to clause (b) of paragraph 5 of Schedule II, sale of building was not treated as supply as per Schedule III of the CGST Act. Further, it was submitted that sale of land was covered by stamp duty regulations and appropriate stamp duty was paid on the same. Accordingly, it was submitted that calculation of profiteering should be excluded from value of land from his computation. Further, it was critical to mention here that GST provisions treats value of land to be 1/3rd of the total amount charged from customers. Hence, the same yardstick should be used for profiteering computation also. Accordingly, an amount of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Respondent No. 2 and the Landowner in respect of allotment of units as part of the development agreement. The development agreement between the Respondent No. 2 and the Landowner was under area sharing model wherein the Respondent constructed the project wherein certain units were allotted to Landowner and the remaining units were retained by the Respondent No. 2. In the present arrangement, there was no monetary consideration involved which the Landowner was providing to the Respondent for the said share of his units. In other words, there was no price which Landowner was providing to the Respondent No. 2 and accordingly, there could not be any commensurate reduction of prices by the Respondent. t. Section 171 of the CGST Act was not applicable in the facts of the present case. Neither reduction in rate of tax on supply of goods / services nor benefit of ITC had been defined in the CGST Act. Reduction in rate of tax on supply of goods / services would mean a reduction in the rate of tax on goods /services supplied by a registered person. The Respondent was admittedly a construction service provider and supplied construction services on which there was no reduction in ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent No. 2 were supplied to the DGAP to file his clarifications under Rule 133 (2A) of the CGST Rules, 2017. In response, the DGAP filed his supplementary report dated 03.03.2021 vide which he has inter-alia stated that:- a. The objections raised by the Respondent No. 2 have been duly covered in the Report dated 31.12.2020. b. Profiteering, if any, had to be computed considering the whole project as a whole irrespective of allocation of Developer or Landowner in order to remove any discrimination among the buyers only because of their purchase of the unit from one party rather than other party. Further, the agreement with the buyers was also signed by both, Respondent No. 1 & No. 2 jointly. Further, vide para-30 of the Report dated 31.12.2020, the DGAP had determined the additional amount of ITC or the profiteering amount to the tune of Rs. 4,11,40,502/- which included GST @12% on the base amount of Rs. 3,67,32,591/-to be passed on by the Respondent No. 1 to his recipients. Since the Developer i.e. the Respondent No. 2 had availed the entire CENVAT/Input Tax Credit for the project (including units pertaining to the Respondent No. 1), therefore the aforesaid amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hodology adopted by the DGAP was correct and strictly as per law enshrined in Section 171 of the CGST Act. The methodology had been consistently adopted by the DGAP and upheld by Authority in all similar cases. In order to quantify the benefit of ITC, it was necessary to quantify the credits available to the Respondent No. 2 in the pre-GST regime and also the credits available in the GST regime. Further, the Respondent No. 2 discharged his output GST liability by utilizing the ITC available to him in addition to the credit which was not available to him in pre-GST period. However, the Respondent collected or charged full GST from the customers or flat buyers. Therefore, the Respondent No. 2 was not required to pay anything from his own pocket to pass on the benefit of additional ITC accrued to him in GST period. Hence, the methodology adopted by the DGAP was correct and justifiable. Further in the Report dated 31.12.2020, the increase in ITC as a percentage of total taxable turnover availed by the Respondent No. 2 post-GST has been quantified. The input or input service wise availability or non-availability of ITC prior and post implementation of GST had not been examined. In the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has also filed his submissions vide various e-mails and has submitted that the Respondent has profiteered in the present case by not passing on the benefit of additional ITC accrued to the Respondent and was forcing him to sign the deed with the clause that "I will not claim any ITC". 10. The proceedings in the matter could not be completed by Authority with in prescribed time limit due to the lack of required quorum of Members in the Authority during the period from 29.04.2021 to 23.02.2022 and the minimum quorum was restored only w.e.f. 23.02.2022. Personal Hearing was held by this Authority on 13.06.2022. It was attended by the Applicant no. 1 and Authorised Representatives of the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 as well as the DGAP. 11. This Authority has carefully considered the Reports filed by the DGAP, all the submissions and the documents placed on record, and the arguments advanced by the Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 1 & 2 during the hearing. 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 pertaining to the passing on the be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inds that the Respondent No. 1 has not incurred any cost related to construction of the project and therefore, no ITC related to construction services had been availed by him. The DGAP vide his Report dated 31.12.2020 has computed the profiteered amount to the tune of Rs. 4,11,40,502/- which was to be passed on by the Respondent No. 1 to his customers/flat buyers/recipients in the said Project. Since the Respondent No. 2 had availed the entire CENVAT/ITC for the project (including units pertaining to the Respondent No. 1), therefore, this Authority finds that the aforesaid profiteered amount has to be passed on by the Respondent No. 2 to the Respondent No. 1 who in turn is required to pass on the benefit to his recipients. b. The Respondent No. 2 has further contended that the Applicant No. 1 has filed his complaint against the Respondent No. 1 and not against him. Also, the flat booked by the Applicant No. 1 pertained to the share of the Respondent No. 1 and thus, the Applicant No. 1 had entered into agreement with the Respondent No. 1 and not with him. Hence, he being a third party in the present case, the proceedings initiated against him should be dropped. In this rega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the DGAP. Therefore, the contention of the Respondent No. 2 in this regard was untenable. c. The Respondent No. 2 has further contended that the investigation cannot go beyond the application filed by the Applicant No. 1. In this regard, the Authority notes that, in terms of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, it is mandated 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". Thus the legal requirement is abundantly clear that in the event of a benefit of ITC or reduction in rate of tax, there must be a commensurate reduction in prices of the any supply of goods or services. The said provision provides for 'any supply', which expand the scope to cover all supplies; where tax reduction or ITC benefit has not been passed on. Therefore, the law prescribes that benefit of reduction in rate of tax or benefit of increase in ITC, in relation to any supply of goods or services should result in commensurate reduction in prices of such supply and accordingly, the DGAP had to examine all the supplies made by the Respondents i.e. other than....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... towards value of land as provided under various Notifications issued from time to time. The turnovers considered by the DGAP, while calculating the profiteered amount in the present case, are such taxable turnovers only. Hence, the value of land already stands excluded from the calculation of the profiteered amount by the DGAP in its Report. Further, the case of M/s. Fusion Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. cited by the Respondent No. 2 does not support his contention, as in Fusion case, the DGAP had computed the benefit of ITC not passed on i.e. the profiteered amount considering the total consideration raised/collected from the Applicant No.1 and other recipients during the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018 and charged GST @ 12% (after abatement for Land) which was mentioned in para-18 of the Order No. 71/2019 dated 13.12.2019 passed by the Authority. Hence, this contention of the Respondent is not tenable. e. The Respondent No. 2 has also contended that in absence of specified procedure and mechanism of calculation of profiteering the proceedings are arbitrary and liable to be dropped. In this regard, the Authority finds that the 'Procedure and Methodology' f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f benefit of additional ITC to be passed on in respect of one project would not be similar to another project. Issuance of Occupancy Certificate/ Completion Certificate would also affect the amount of benefit of ITC as no such benefit would be available once the above certificates are issued. Therefore, no set parameters can be fixed for determining the methodology to compute the benefit of additional ITC which would be required to be passed on to the buyers of such units. Further, the facts of the cases relating to the Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCGs), restaurants, construction, and cinema houses are completely different and therefore, the mathematical methodology employed in the case of one sector cannot be applied in the other sector otherwise it would result in denial of the benefit to the eligible recipients. Moreover, both the above benefits have been granted by the Central as well as the State Governments by sacrificing their tax revenue in the public interest hence the suppliers are not required to pay even a single penny from their pocket, and hence they have to pass on the above benefits as per the provisions of Section 171 (1). Hence, the Authority finds that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of 15 months is to cover a reasonable period just before the GST so that a proper assessment of percentage of ITC available to the Respondent could be arrived at. Further, during this period there was no variation in rate of tax on services and prior to that there were several changes in the rate of service tax as well as changes in the conditions for eligibility of availment of CENVAT Credit of Service Tax and Excise Duty including rate of abatement etc. which would result in distorted picture of CENVAT. Thus, this period was taken to find out the average ratio of ITC availability with turnover. The ratio of ITC and turnover in Pre-GST is compared with ratio of ITC in post GST. The period during the GST period may be one month or one year, depending upon the period of investigation. It does not mean that, if the period is larger, the availability of ITC would increase or decrease, but, it only gives a ratio which represents the period for comparison. It is a standard practice by the DGAP to take pre-GST period from 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017 which has been followed in all cases. These cases have been upheld by this Authority. Therefore, the contention raised by the Respondent is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entire amount profiteered, starting from the date from which the amount was profiteered till the date of passing on/ payment/return, as per provisions of Rule 133 (3) (b) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 16. The complete list of homebuyers/customers/recipients of supply has been attached with this Order, with the details of profiteered amount to be passed on/returned/refunded along with interest @ 18% in respect of the project 'Siddha Eden Lakeview' of the Respondent No. 1 & 2 as in the Annexure-A and Annexure-B respectively. 17. The Authority also order that the profiteered amount of Rs. 4,11,40,502/- (in respect of the Respondent No. 1) and Rs. 2,50,94,164/- (in respect of the Respondent No. 2), for the project 'Siddha Eden Lakeview' along with the interest @ 18% from the date of receiving of profiteered amount from the homebuyers/customers/recipients of supply till the date of passing on of the benefit of ITC i.e. profiteered amount shall be paid/passed on by the Respondent No. 1 & 2 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. 18. It is evident from the above narration of fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the benefit of ITC which would become available to them till the date of issue of Completion Certificate. Accordingly, the concerned jurisdictional Commissioner CGST/SGST are directed to ensure that the Respondent passes on the benefit of ITC to the eligible homebuyers /customers /recipients of supply as per the methodology approved by this Authority in the present case and submit report to this Authority through the DGAP. The Applicant No. 1 or any other interested party/person shall also be at liberty to file complaint against the Respondent before the West Bengal State Screening Committee in case the remaining benefit of ITC is not passed on to them. 23. Further, 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 p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... OA-203 182,096 BALAI NANDY AGENCY & 30 IS-2205 363,043 CO. PVT. LTD. 31 BANDANA ROY OA-806 292,944 D 32 BASUDEB BANERJEE LG-903 194,756 33 BENOY KUMAR DE LG-803 12,627 34 BHASKAR ROY IS-2001 15,398 35 BIJAY KUMAR BHARTIA MR-805 * 36 BIKAS KUMAR SARKAR OA-104 355,458 37 CHANDRA KANT PATAWARI ST-702 50,657 CHANDRA SHEKHAR 38 RI-1305 151,848 TIWARI 39 DAMAYANTI BANERJEE LG-904 192,304 40 DEBABRATA MAJUMDER MR-205 22,305 41 DEBABRATA MALLIK IS-2106 69,516 Case. No. 75/2022 Shri Rajesh Shaw Vs M/s Eden Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Page 1 of 6 42 DEBJANI ACHARYYA RI-901 167,210 43 DILIP AGARWAL IS-202 13,943 44 DIPAK DAS PRO-1505 238,995 45 DIPANKAR SAHA LG-703 187,406 46 DIPANWITA SAHA ST-403 245,451 47 DR. SAKTIBRATA BHOWMIK OA-902 416,435 48 DULAL CHANDRA SEN LG-902 225,282 49 GAYATRI SAHA ST-903 109,299 50 GOPAL GHOSH ST-801 128,874 51 GOVIND KUMAR AGARWAL MR-305 12,746 52 HARI NARAYAN PANDEY ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ST-2501 589,748 SINHA 101 Mr. SOURAV DUTTA RI-1402 300,977 102 Mr. SOURAV SEN LG-901 70,345 103 Mr. SUBHAJIT MAITY PRO-1303 100,883 104 MR.SUBHASISH GHOSH OA-1405 244,522 105 MRITYUNJAY PRASAD MR-504 * 106 Mrs. MANDIRA SAMAJPATI OA-804 192,506 107 Mrs. MITA SAJJAN PRO-2503 114,413 108 Mrs. MOUSUMI SAHA IS-1704 274,752 109 Mrs. PUJA ROY LG-501 294,037 Ms. SUTAPA 110 RI-2502 270,602 ROYCHOUDHURY 111 NARAYAN AGARWAL MR-405 112 NIHARENDU TALUKDER LG-905 258,554 113 NILIMA GHOSH MR-301 238,060 114 NITIRUPA DAS RI-805 171,208 115 PANKAJ PATRA PRO-1405 105,419 116 PANNALAL AGARWAL MR-402 117 PARAMITA GHOSH RI-1204 280,365 118 PARAS NATH THAKUR OA-903 12,523 119 PARITOSH SAHA LG-701 307,853 PARMESHWAR LAL 120 MR-702 245,147 AGARWAL PARTHA PRATIM DAS 121 LG-805 244,331 GUPTA 122 PARTHA SARATHI BISWAS LG-605 371,696 123 PARTHA SARATHI MONDAL PRO-1804 113,894 PETUNIA MERCANTILE PVT. 124 IS-1905 * ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 172 SHAONI ROY CHOWDHURY ST-2403 43,579 173 SHIONATH MISHRA RI-1102 140,123 174 SHUBHASHIS BALLAV IS-1803 291,345 SHYAM KISHORE 175 MR-802 245,706 CHAURASIA 176 SHYAMAL KUMAR DAS ST-901 * 177 SIDDHARTHA PAL ST-1303 14,384 SISTA KANAKA DURGA 178 MR-801 238,701 PRASAD 179 SK.JULFIKAR ALI IS-1601 103,160 180 SOMBRATA ROY RI-501 82,952 181 SOMNATH GHATAK OA-905 220,910 182 SOMNATH PATHAK MR-603 * 183 SOMOSRI RAY ST-502 127,756 Case. No. 75/2022 Shri Rajesh Shaw Vs M/s Eden Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Page 4 of 6 184 SONU KUMAR SINGH MR-502 253,280 185 SRABANI TARAFDAR MR-804 166,847 186 SUBHADEEP BANERJEE LG-204 186,664 187 SUBHAJIT DATTA IS-2003 10,540 188 SUBHANKAR SAHA LG-804 192,521 189 SUBHASHIS RAKSHIT OA-504 188,458 190 SUBHRA BANERJEE IS-2006 15,398 191 SUBHRA SARKAR IS-1703 102,589 192 SUBRATA BARMAN MR-902 193 SUBRATA KUMAR MANDAL IS-1602 13,638 194 SUBRATA KUMAR NANDY LG-801 181,627 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 BULBUL BHATTACHARYYA BL2-603 80,385 244 CHANDAN KUMAR YADAV BL2-502 93,203 245 CHHAYA SARKAR BL1-1007 120,639 246 DEBJANI SAHA BL2-507 60,854 247 DILIP NARAYAN THAKUR BL2-407 57,107 248 DINESH YADAV BL2-602 68,021 249 Dr. SHANKAR DEY BL1-701 288,559 250 DR. SNEHESH DATTA BL2-503 61,329 251 DR. SUCHARITA MANDAL BL2-404 93,191 252 KAKALI DAS BL2-402 68,160 253 KOUSHIK DUTTA BL2-607 64,165 254 KUNTAL SENGUPTA BL1-902 207,819 255 MALLIKA GHOSH BL2-508 197,924 256 MANISH PANDEY BL2-707 83,408 257 MONALISA DAS BL2-403 68,748 258 POUSHALI PAUL BL2-504 152,187 259 PRADIP DEY BHOWMICK BL1-807 123,169 260 PRASENJIT ROY BL2-605 91,481 261 PRITHWIJIT SHIT BL2-702 66,716 262 RESHMI LALA BL1-1002 209,265 263 RINKU DAS BL2-705 184,585 264 RITA NANDI BL1-907 146,947 265 SANTU BANERJEE BL2-703 68,084 266 SASANKA SEKHAR MALLICK BL2-604 91,467 267 SAYANTAN SAHA BL1-803 184,867 SELVARAJU 268 BL1-908....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... HR/I/402 Sanjay Kumar Das HR/1/402 121,059 HR/I/403 Oindranil 18 HR/1/403 123,564 Chatterjee HR/1/404 Sapan Kumar 19 HR/1/404 166,168 Sarawgi 20 HR/I/405 Abhijit Pal HR/1/405 167,926 21 HR/1/406 Sumana Mondal HR/1/406 102,155 22 HR/I/407 Amit Kumar Chai HR/1/407 112,670 23 HR/I/501 Gita Shaw HR/I/501 157,977 HR/1/502 Gouri Sankar 24 HR/1/502 123,261 Konar 25 HR/I/503 Anushree Dutta HR/1/503 124,713 26 HR/1/504 Rupali Sen HR/1/504 168,651 27 HR/1/505 Soumalya Saha HR/1/505 169,159 HR/1/506 GOUTAM 28 HR/1/506 104,287 HALDAR 29 HR/1/507 Sovendra 29 HR/1/507 111,565 Bhowmik HR/1/508 Gauri Sankar 30 HR/1/508 Konar 31 32 HR/I/601 Jayanta Dutta HR/1/602 SUVEN ROY HR/I/601 * HR/1/602 52,901 Case. No. 75/2022 Shri Rajesh Shaw Vs M/s Eden Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Anti-profiteering National Ant * ering Authority * ON NAA NATIONAL ANTI PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Dept. of Revenue Ministry of Finance Govt. of india मà¥à¤¨à¤¾à¤«à¤....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Dhar/Tania Dhar Case. No. 75/2022 Shri Rajesh Shaw Vs M/s Eden Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Page 2 of 12 72 HR/11/901 Garima Dhabhai HR/11/901 * 73 HR/11/902 Subhas Ch. De HR/11/902 38,826 74 HR/11/903 Sudeshna Ghosh HR/11/903 37,322 75 HR/11/904 Kamana Bose HR/11/904 63,377 HR/11/905 Kakali 76 HR/11/905 63,377 Chattopadhyay 77 HR/11/906 Soni Jha HR/11/906 22,763 78 HR/11/907 Ranjan Dutta HR/11/907 31,109 79 HR/11/908 Sujoy Kumar Paul HR/11/908 * 80 IS 1001 Anil Lakhotia IS 1001 76,775 81 IS 1002 Anil Lakhotia IS 1002 33,076 82 IS 1003 Kalidas Goswami IS 1003 27,892 IS 1004 Jaskaran Singh 83 IS 1004 10,032 Jassal & Ankit Fogla 84 IS 1005 Tricky Builders Pvt Ltd iS 1005 15,854 85 IS 1006 Aman Singhania IS 1006 59,966 86 IS 106 Sayantika Bhaduri IS 106 39,025 IS 1101 Santosh Kumar 87 IS 1101 20,752 Hajari 88 IS 1102 Chittranjan Dey Sarakar IS 1102 17,033 89 IS 1103 Suman Singh IS 1103 * 90 IS 1104 Sabita Chowdhury IS 1104 9,335 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04 Rahul Jain IS 404 11,035 134 IS 405 Santipada Bhunia IS 405 13,294 135 IS 406 Supriya Debray IS 406 14,198 IS 501 Chandrima Sinha * 136 IS 501 Roy 137 IS 502 Rekha Jaiswal IS 502 15,989 138 IS 503 Gurucharan Khaspuri IS 503 9,887 139 IS 504 Gouri Rani Maiti IS 504 28,382 140 IS 505 RAKESH KUMAR IS 505 44,571 141 IS 506 Suman Sengupta IS 506 39,649 142 IS 601 Piyali Basu IS 601 15,357 143 IS 602 Debdulal Jana IS 602 45,591 IS 603 Sandeep Dutta & 144 IS 603 27,053 Rathindra Nath Datta 145 IS 604 Nitin Poddar IS 604 10,583 146 IS 605 Vijay Kumar Tiwari IS 605 43,811 147 IS 606 Sudipta De IS 606 40,305 IS 701 Tapan Kumar 148 IS 701 38,944 Chtterjee 149 IS 702 Joydip Das IS 702 46,017 150 IS 703 Suvankar Bose IS 703 27,399 151 IS 704 Archana Das IS 704 30,318 IS 705 Ashok Kumar 152 IS 705 15,966 Rajgaria 153 IS 706 Rahul Kumar Shaw IS 706 14,176 154 IS 801 Anil Lakhotia IS 801 28,382 155 IS 802 Kallol Kumar Dey ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... LG 1702 Goutam Kumar 196 LG 1702 * Saha 197 LG 1703 Tarun Kumar Pramanick LG 1703 196,917 Case. No. 75/2022 Shri Rajesh Shaw Vs M/s Eden Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Page 5 of 12 198 LG 1704 Saibal Chakraborty LG 1704 202,665 199 LG 1803 Kamal Kanti Roy LG 1803 197,517 200 LG 1804 Asish Kumar Nan LG 1804 203,392 201 LG 1903 Rajiv Roy LG 1903 198,082 202 LG 1904 Ankur Biswas LG 1904 189,354 203 LG 2001 Sanchari Sinha Roy LG 2001 204 LG 2003 Krishna Sain LG 2003 59,456 205 LG 2004 Rina Dutta LG 2004 174,912 206 LG 203 Pankaj Agarwal LG 203 12,405 207 LG 206 Srila Biswas LG 206 147,781 * 208 LG 2101 Trisha Sinha Roy LG 2101 209 LG 2103 Arindam Mondal LG 2103 212,740 210 LG 2104 Rajib Kumar Bhowal LG 2104 201,069 211 LG 2203 Sujit Das LG 2203 * 212 LG 2204 Sarat Sundar Banik LG 2204 * 213 LG 2303 Sumanjit Sikdar * LG 2303 214 LG 2403 Sangita Bag * LG 2403 * 215 LG 2404 Samput Mallick LG 2404 LG 2504 Soma 216 LG 2504 * ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... MR 1903 MR 1904 Ashim De 259 MR 1904 174,125 Chowdhury * 260 MR 1905 Arun Kumar Sah MR 1905 261 MR 2002 Malay Nath MR 2002 260,157 MR 2003 Biswadeep 262 MR 2003 Mukherjee 263 MR 2004 Sreejita Chanda MR 2004 176,468 MR 2102 Mousumi 264 MR 2102 Srivastava 265 MR 2104 Apurba Das MR 2104 177,686 266 MR 2202 Anand Kumar Giri MR 2202 278,125 267 MR 2204 Ashis Baidya MR 2204 179,017 268 MR 2302 Abhishek Ghosh * MR 2302 269 MR 2304 Shambo Sen MR 2304 * 270 MR 2501 Chaitali Mandal MR 2501 251,970 271 MR 2502 Dinesh Bhadra MR 2502 * MR 503 Benoyendra 272 MR 503 * Narayan 273 OA 1103 Soumit Dhar OA 1103 193,261 274 OA 1104 Sudha Kochar OA 1104 12,792 275 OA 1105 Rajesh Agarwal OA 1105 * 276 OA 1202 Priyanka Halder OA 1202 * OA 1203 Bishnu Charan 277 OA 1203 154,771 Mahata 278 OA 1204 Arka Ghosh OA 1204 175,143 279 OA 1205 Kalyani Debnath OA 1205 120,611 280 OA 1206 Basabjit Das OA 1206 * Case. No. 75/2022 Shri Raje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....404 Gopal Krishna Saha OA 2404 189,269 * 321 OA 2503 Keya Chatterjee OA 2503 322 OA 2504 Jaideep Sharma OA 2504 159,143 323 PRO 1003 Swapan Basu PRO 1003 * 324 PRO 1005 Sayan Acharya PRO 1005 74,230 325 PRO 1006 Amit Kumar Vishwakarma PRO 1006 * PRO 1101 Maitreyee 326 PRO 1101 * Ganapati 327 PRO 1103 Smriti Saha PRO 1103 PRO 1104 328 Singdha/tanweesha Chakraborty PRO 1104 45,052 329 PRO 1105 Rajeev Kumar Sinha PRO 1105 * 330 PRO 1106 Kamalika Roy PRO 1106 * 331 PRO 202 Biswanath Malik PRO 202 * 332 PRO 203 Lopamidra Bag PRO 203 * 333 PRO 204 Biswajit Paul PRO 204 * 334 PRO 205 Subrata Das PRO 205 * 335 PRO 2203 Abhisekh Roy PRO 2203 * PRO 2303 Ajay Kumar * 336 PRO 2303 Jayswal PRO 2304 Bappaditya 337 PRO 2304 * Nandy PRO 2403 Prosenjit 338 PRO 2403 * Ganguly * 339 PRO 2404 Aranya Kundu PRO 2404 340 PRO 2405 Arup Laha PRO 2405 34,140 PRO 302 Subrato 341 PRO 302 * Chakraborty 342 PRO 303 Lili Dapta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2505 ** 387 RI 302 Arindam Dutta RI 302 * 388 RI 305 Prosenjit Manna RI 305 36,857 RI 401 Sharmistha 389 RI 401 67,712 Chowdury 390 RI 405 Anjan Das Gupta RI 405 * RI 406 Debyendu 391 RI 406 * Chakraborty 392 RI 502 Prabir Kumar Das * RI 502 393 RI 505 Kailash Pati Mondal * RI 505 394 RI 506 Saikat Dey RI 506 82,615 RI 601 Sanjoy 395 RI 601 * Roychowdhury RI 602 KALAKRITI HOUSING 396 RI 602 70,247 PVT LTD 397 RI 605 Mousumi Saha RI 605 * 398 RI 606 Alok Choudhury RI 606 * 399 RI 701 Debajit Datta RI 701 81,453 Case. No. 75/2022 Shri Rajesh Shaw Vs M/s Eden Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Page 10 of 12 * 400 RI 702 Uma De RI 702 RI 703 KALAKRITI HOUSING 401 RI 703 * PRIVATE LIMITED 402 RI 705 Arati Mukherjee RI 705 * 403 RI 802 Aloke Maity RI 802 88,862 404 ST 1001 Saraswati Roy ST 1001 21,686 ST 1002 PARSVANATH 405 ST 1002 DEVELOPERS & CREATORS 406 ST 1003 Raj Kumar Agarwal ST 1003 18,849 407 St 1101 Bani Biswas ....