TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led investigation under Rule 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that a reference was received from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering on 09.10.2019 to conduct a detailed investigation in respect of an application filed under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017 by the Applicant No. 1, alleging profiteering by the Respondent No. 1 in respect of purchase of Flat No. 1404, Tower T-06 in the Respondent's Project "Crescent Bay" situated at Jerbai Wadia Road, near Mahatma Phule Education Society, Bhoiwada Parel Mumbai-400012. The Applicant No. 1 alleged that the Respondent No.1 had not passed on the full 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. Vide the aforesaid Report dated 29.10.2020 (REPORT), the DGAP had reported that the Applicant No. 1 had submitted the following documents alongwith his application: i. Possession Demand Letter alongwith Demand Note cum invoice, TDS Certificate & Interest Statement. ii Copy of Credit Note of passing on benefit of ITC. iii; Copy of Payment plan. 3. On receipt of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....60:40 revenue sharing Joint Development Agreement with M/s Omkar Realtors and Developers (P) Limited (earlier known as M/s Shree Siddhivinayak Enterprises) in 2012 to develop residential project comprising Six (06) Towers at Parel, Mumbai. This residential project (Crescent Bay) comprised of approximate 1400 residential Bharat Kashyap V5 M/s L & T Parel Project LLP Page 3 of 81 apartments with aggregate saleable area of 28 lakh sq.ft.(approx.). Details as on 30.09.2019 are given in Table- 'A' below: Table-'A' Tower's Name Date of receipt of OC Floors/Units Covered Respondent No. 1 (L&T)'s Component Join Developer Component Total Units Total Area (in sq. ft.) No of Units Area (In.Sq.ft) No of Units Area (In Sq.ft) No of Units Area (In Sq.ft) Tower 1 22.05.17 1 to 39^th Floor 179 2,70,085 - - 29 42955 208 3,13,040 15.03.18 40 & 41^th Floor 7 10,270 5 8,950 - - 12 19,220 Tower 2 31.10.18 1 to 23^rd Floor 130 1,94,750 - - - - 130 1,94,750 12.03.9 23 to 43^d Floor 98 1,40,960 12 17,840 - - 110 1,58,800 Tower 3 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....some towers as shown in table-'A' supra whereas the OC was not received for Tower 3 & Tower 6 (excluding Tower 6 units from 1st to 27^th Floors, 28^th to 40^th Floors, Units- 4101, 4102, 4103 and 4403. He further submitted that on receipt of the OC, he had reversed the ITC attributable to the units unsold and such ITC reversal was being made at the time of receipt of the OC and thereafter on a monthly basis for subsequent procurements. The inputs, input services and capital goods were received at various stages of the project which was common for entire project. The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the ITC reversal on account of receipt of the OC would continue till the completion of the project life. vi. ITC reversal of Rs. 4,76,01,568/- pertaining to March 2018 and the said reversal was required to be made in terms of Rule 42 of the Rules on receipt of OC. Since he did not have sufficient ITC balance, they deposited the amount in electronic cash ledger on 18.04.2018. He further stated that he was of the understanding that the said amount would be debited along with return for March 2018. However, due to inadvertent mistake in filling details in Form GSTR-3B for March 2018....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oadly, he issued credit notes to customers with whom Agreement for Sale was already executed, and for other customers, contract price itself was re- negotiated before entering into Agreement for Sale of flat. Similar benefits were passed on to both customers only mode of passing on of benefit was different. He had passed on the benefit of ITC in respect of customers who had booked the flats prior to implementation of GST in the following 2 modes:- a. he had passed on benefit of ITC by way of issuance of credit note at the time of raising demand on handing over possession of the flat to customers in GST regime. The details of the credit note were communicated to the customers and reflected in the facility provided to customer viz. the customer login portal. All customers had made payment net of the credit notes issued to pass on the benefit of ITC. The fact of issuance of credit note to customers and customers receiving the amount mentioned in credit note could be verified. b. he had agreed the value for sale of the flat (Initial Agreed Price) before introduction of GST with customers. However, on introduction of GST, he had renegotiated the agreement value (Renego....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as in the receipt of letter dated 18.11.2019 & reminder dated 28.11.2019 from the Dy. Commissioner of State Tax (E-634), LTU- 03, Mumbai (Jurisdictional Officer), requiring him to submit relevant documents and details which was same list of documents and details as mentioned in the DGAP's notice of initiation dated 21.10.2019 regarding the issue mentioned in the complaint made by the same Applicant No. 1 and requested the DGAP to issue suitable guidance to him in order to avoid parallel investigation as DGAP alone was empowered to conduct the investigation into allegation of profiteering based on reference received from the Standing Committee. xiii. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India's order in suo moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020, that considering the need to obviate difficulty in respect of cases, had ordered remedial measures for submissions/filings before all the authorities till further order/s to be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. The Respondent No.1 vide the aforementioned letters/e-mails, has submitted the following documents/information to the DGAP:- a. Copies of GSTR-1 Returns for the period July, 2017 to December, 2019. b. Copies of GSTR-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were collectively enclosed as Annex-28 of the Report. An opportunity was also given to the Applicant No. 1 to inspect the non-confidential documents/reply furnished by the Respondent No.1 on 15.06.2020 and 16.06.2020. Since, the Applicant No. 1 had expressed his inability to visit the DGAP and requested for sending copies of said documents/reply of the Respondent No. 1, the DGAP vide e-mail dated 15.06.2020 had sent the said non-confidential documents/reply to him to inspect and requested to the Applicant No. 1 to confirm whether the receipt of benefit passed on by the Respondent No. 1. The Applicant No. 1 acknowledged and confirmed vide his e-mails dated 12.09.2020. 10. The DGAP has observed that the Respondent No. 1 had entered into a 60:40 revenue sharing Joint Development Agreement with Respondent No. 2 in 2012 to develop the project viz. "Crescent Bay" comprising 1482 flats. Since, the Respondent No. 1 didn't have details of home buyers and status of sold and unsold units as on 30.09.2019 pertaining to 62 units out of 1482, which were allotted to M/s Omkar Realtors & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Landowners) as Investor's Component by him, therefore, the DGAP had decided to implea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 1. c. The entire construction cost of construction and sale of building (including 62 flats allotted to the Respondent No. 2) were incurred and borne by Respondent No. 1. Further, he has submitted that he had not availed any input tax credit/CENVAT credit in respect of inputs, capital goods and input services used for construction of sale building (including 62 saleable flats allotted to him) as he had not procured any construction material, capital goods and input services for construction of sale buildings. d. Respondent No. 1 had sold all 62 flats allotted to him during construction phase only. Further he had not sold any flat to the Applicant No. 1. Hence, no complain of profiteering was lying against him. e. He had submitted that the anti-profiteering provisions were applicable only in following cases: i. Reduction in tax rate on supply of goods or services; or ii. Additional benefit of ITC received. There had been no reduction in Tax rate of sale of under construction flats from Service Tax regime to GST regime. He had charged tax at applicable rates on 62 flats sold by him and duly deposited the same with the governm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; (Amount in Rs.) S.No. Payment Stages Due Date Basic% BSP Other Charges* Service Tax VAT GST GST ITC Benefit passed on Total 1 Application Money 31.07.2014 1.68% 10,60,670 39,330 0 0 11,00,000 2 Earnest Money 30.08.2014 17.32% 109,44,813 4,05,833 0 0 113,50,646 3 On completion of ground floor Podium plinth 13.02.2015 11.00% 69,50,543 2,57,727 0 0 72,08,270 4 On completion of 2^nd podium floor slab 06.05.2015 5.00% 31,59,338 1,17,148 0 0 32,76,486 5 On completion of 5^th podium floor slab 31.07.2015 5.00% 31,59,338 1,32,692 0 0 32,92,030 6 On completion of 2^nd floor slab 25.03.2016 5.50% 34,75,271 1,51,174 0 0 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 Share Application Money 600 0 600 Total 20,64,100 2,35,620 22,99,720 15. The Respondent No. 1 had obtained Tower-wise 6 RERA registrations for the project and the Applicant No. 1 filed application w.r.t. his flat no. T-06-1404 situated in Tower-6. The registration-wise details of the project are mentioned table-'D' below: Table-'D' Tower Name RERA Registration No. Date of receipt of OC Floors/Units Covered Total Units Total Area (in sq.ft) Tower 1 P51900008032 22.05.2017 1^st to 39^th Floor 208 3.13.040 15.03.2018 40^th & 41^th Floor 12 19,220 Tower 2 P51900010178 31.10.2018 1^st to 23^rd Floor 130 1,94,750 12.03.2019 23^rd to 43^rd Floor 110 1,58,800 Tower 3 P51900005188 Under construction - 268 4,16,210 Tower 4 P51900006593 15.03.2018 1^st to 49^th Floors 266 3,91,870 Tower 5 P51900004544 15.03.2018 1^st to 54^th Floors 294 6,79,680 Tower 6 P51900004666 09.05.2019 1^st to 27^th Floors 102 3,47,780 27.09.2019 28^th to 40^th Floors, Units - 4101,4102,4103 & 4403 48 1,62,160 Unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... &Section 17(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, which read as under:- Section 17 (2) "Where the goods or services or both are used by the registered person partly for effecting taxable supplies including zero- rated supplies under this Act or under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act and partly for effecting exempt supplies under the said Acts, the amount of credit shall be restricted to so much of the input tax as is attributable to the said taxable supplies including zero- rated supplies ". Section17(3) "The value of exempt supply under sub-section(2)shall be such as maybe prescribed and shall include supplies on which the recipient is liable to pay tax on reverse charge basis, transactions in securities, sale of land and, subject to clause(b)of paragraph 5 of Schedule I, sale of building" Therefore, the ITC pertaining to the unsold units will not fall within the ambit of this investigation and the Respondent No. 1 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. 17. Respondent No. 1 has also claimed that subsequent to enactment of GST w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Availed without reversal (C) - 66,75,82,817 4 Total CENVAT/Input Tax Credit Availed (D)=(A+B) or (C) 30,02,59,709 66,75,82,817 5 Turnover for Residential Flats as per Home Buyers List including Fresh Negotiations (before considering ITC benefit passed on (E) 10,23,01,55,428 3,29,49,47,827 6 Turnover for Residential Flats as per Home Buyers of Landowner(F) 5,05,20,358 10,47,93,411 7 Total Turnover for Residential Flats as per Home Buyers List including Fresh Negotiations & Landowners (G)=(E+F) 10,28,06,75,786 3,39,97,41,238 8 Total Saleable Area in the project(in SQF) (H) 28,34,030 28,34,030 9 Total Sold Area including Land owner (in SQF)(I) 14,42,630 17,31,855 10 Relevant CENVAT/ITC[(J)=(D)*(I)/(H)] 15,28,43,712 40,79,54,975 Ratio of CENVAT/ITC to Turnover[(K)=(H)/(G)] 1.49% 12.00% * Note-1: Since the Respondent No. 1 had availed the entire CENVAT/ITC for the project (including units pertaining to the Respondent No. 2), therefore CENVAT/TC availed in Respondent No. 1's books considered in above table. However, turnover & area of the Respondent No. 2 was included at S. No. 7 & 9 re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amount collected/raised by Respondent No. land2 I=G+H 2,80,99,18,878 11,73,68,620 2,92,72,87,498 11 Recalibrated Base Price J=(G)*(I-D) or 89.49 % of (G) 2,24,51,75,361 9,37,79,623 2,33,89,54,984 12 GST@12% K=J*12% 26,94,21,043 1,12,53,555 28,06,74,598 13 Commensurate demand price L=J+K 2,51,45,96,404 10,50,33,178 2,61,96,29,582 14 Excess Collection of Demand or Profiteering Amount M=I-L 29,53,22,474 1,23,35,442 30,76,57,916 20. In view of the above Table-F, the DGAP has averred that the additional ITC of 10.51% 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 by the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to the respective recipients. 21. Hence, on the basis of the aforesaid CENVAT/ITC availability in the pre and post-GST periods and the details of the amount raised/collected by the Respondent No. 1 from the Applicant No. 1 and other home buyers during the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019, the Respondent No. 1 had benefited by an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....therefore, ITC pertaining to the above 41 units was outside the scope of this investigation as the selling price of such units was negotiated between the home buyers and the Respondent No. 1 taking into consideration the benefit of ITC or change in GST. Further, out of the remaining 1046 flats [(1137) - (50+41)], 195 customers booked the flats in pre- GST period and also paid amounts in pre-GST period but have not paid any consideration during the post-GST period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019 (period covered by investigation). If ITC in respect of these 195 units was taken into account to calculate profiteering in respect of other units where payments towards construction value had been received post-GST, the ITC as a percentage of turnover would be distorted and erroneous. Therefore, the benefit of ITC in respect of these 195 units should be calculated when the consideration was received from the concerned home buyers, by taking into account the proportionate ITC in respect of such units. 23. The Respondent No. 1 had claimed that he had passed on the benefit of Rs. 8,05,83,868/- (including GST @ 12%) to the 866 home buyers (net of cancelled units) and provided the sample copies....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10 32 47,530 0 0 0 0 No Consideration Paid and No Benefit passed on. Total (Respondent No.2)(B) 62 99,805 10,47,93,411 1,23,35,442 0 1,23,35,442 Grand Total (C=A+B) 1,482 28,34,030 5,48,65,12,857 30,76,57,916 8,05,83,868 24. In view of the above table-G, the DGAP has observed that the benefit passed on by the Respondent No. 1 to the recipients was less than what he ought to have passed on in case of 850 residential flats including the Applicant No. 1 (Sr. 1 & 2 of above table) by an amount of Rs. 22,11,75,815/-. The details of these amounts were given in Annex-38 of the Report. Further, benefit passed on by the Respondent No. 1 is higher than what he should had passed on, in respect of 17 residential flat (Sr. 3 & 4 of above table) by an amount of Rs. 64,37,210/-. The details of this excess benefit passed by the Respondent No. 1, were given in Annex-39 of the Report. However, this excess benefit passed on to some recipients, could not be set off against the additional benefit required to be passed on to the other recipients as per Annex-38 and it could only be adjusted against any future b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings, the DGAP has concluded that 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 amounting to Rs. 22,11,75,815/- and Respondent No. 2 amounting to Rs.1,23,35,442/- in the present case. 28. The DGAP has reported that the Respondent No. 1 & 2 had supplied construction services in the State of Maharashtra only. He had also reported that the present investigation covered the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019 and 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 in future could not be determined at this stage, when the Respondent No. 1 was continuing to avail ITC in respect of the present project. 29. The above Report was carefully considered by this Authority and a Notice dated 06.11.2020 was issued to the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to explain why the ty Report dated 29.10.2020 submitted by the DGAP should not be accepted and their liability for profiteering in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ans credit of input tax, and input tax means CGST, SGST, UTGST and IGST. Based on the definition of ITC and input tax, if one was to derive the meaning of the phrase benefit of ITC, it would mean benefit in the form of availability of ITC of GST charged on procurement of certain goods/services, which was earlier not available as ITC (either fully or partially) but becomes now available as ITC. For instance, under section 17(5)(a) of the CGST Act, ITC in respect of motor vehicles was not available (except in certain cases) and the said bar was on ITC in respect of all types of motor vehicles, irrespective of seating capacity. This was subsequently amended by the CGST (Amendment) Act, 2018 to provide that ITC should not be available only in respect of motor vehicles having seating capacity of not more than 13 persons (including the driver), except in certain cases. The effect of this amendment was that in respect of motor vehicles exceeding the seating capacity of 13 persons, ITC was available. Section 171 was intended to cover such kind of situations, where ITC was not available earlier in GST regime itself and the benefit of same became subsequently available. c. Even the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was filed in the respective cases: i. M/s U. P. Sales & Services vs. M/s Vrandavaneshwree Automotive Private Limited reported at 2018-VIL-01-NAA: In this case, the applicant filed an application alleging that the supplier did not pass on the benefit of reduced rate of tax on Honda Car having Model No. WR-V 1.2 VX MT (i-VTEC) purchased by (V the applicant. This Authority in this case while holding that the supplier had not contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 limited its enquiry and order, only to the particular model of car. ii. Shri Rishi Gupta vs. M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd. reported at 2018 VIL-04-NAA: In this case, the applicant filed an application stating that it paid extra amount for Godrej Interio Slimline Metal Almirah to the supplier and by not refunding the same, the supplier was resorting to profiteering in contravention to Section 171. The Authority while holding that the supplier had not contravened the provisions of Section 171 limited his order only to the particular model of almirah. Reliance was also placed on decision of - • Director General Anti-Profiteering v. M/s Pulimoottill Silks reporte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en in the grounds of appeals these points had not been taken." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the case of Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. vs. CCE, reported at 1996 (88) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Revenue authorities could not make an order against an assessee that was based on allegations and grounds that were not raised in the notice of show-cause. The relevant paragraph had been extracted for reference: [...] 3. It would be remembered that the case of the Revenue, which the appellant had been required to meet at every stage from the show cause notice onwards, was that the said product was a preparation based on starch. Having come to the conclusion that the said product was not a preparation based on starch, the Tribunal should have allowed the appeal. It was beyond the competence of the Tribunal to make out in favor of the Revenue a case which the Revenue had never canvassed and which the appellants had never been required to meet. It was upon this ground alone that the appeal must succeed. (Emphasis Supplied) f. An order could not travel beyond a show cause notice, the investigation and Report ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e application deserved to be rejected. III. Investigation report in any case need to be restricted to the RERA project in respect of which Applicant No. 1 had made the booking and could not be extended to other projects. Report had been furnished without considering Respondent No. 1's submissions dated 30.10.2020 va and therefore liable to be set aside:- a. The project "Crescent Bay" consists of 6 towers, all of which was separately registered under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 in the State of Maharashtra. Copy of registration of these projects under the RERA laws was enclosed, from which it could be seen that all the towers was separately registered and the Authority had consistently held in various cases that the computation of profiteering had to be carried out project wise. In this regard, reliance was also placed, in which cases the investigation report and the order of this Authority was project-wise:- 1. Shri Venugopal Gellavs Shapoorji Palonji (Legal Name: Relationship Properties Pvt. Ltd.) [2020-VIL-79-NAA]. 2. Shri Potnoor Naveen vs Caroa Properties LLP [2019-VIL-72- NAA] read with DGAP vs Caroa Properties LLP (Order of Au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... investigation to Tower 6 alone. IV. In absence of prescribed method of calculation of profiteering in the Act or the Rules or the procedure, the proceedings were arbitrary and liable to be set aside; a. The CGST Act read with the CGST Rules did not provide the procedure and mechanism of determination and calculation of profiteering. In absence of the same, the calculation and methodology used in the report was arbitrary and was in violation of principles of natural justice. b. The Central Government vide Notification No. 10/2017-Central Tax dated 28.06.2017 (amending Notification No. 3/2017-Central Tax) notified anti-profiteering rules which provided for constitution of this Authority, standing committee and screening committee, power to determine the methodology and procedure, duties of the Authority, examination of application, order of the Authority, compliance by the registered person etc. c. The Rule 126 of the CGST Rules contained provisions regarding the power to determine the methodology and procedure for determination as to whether the reduction in rate of tax on the supply of goods or services or the benefit of ITC had been passed on by the registered person ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rofit) (Net Profit Margin) Regulations 2014, which provided for the mechanism to calculate whether any company had profiteered on account of GST or not. The anti-profiteering measured in Australia revolved around the 'Net Dollar Margin Rule' serving as the fundamental principle for his guidelines. That is, if the new tax scheme - GST in this case - caused taxes and costs to fall by $1, then prices should fall by at least $1. At the same time if the cost of the business rose by $1 under the new tax scheme, then prices might rise by not more than $1. These regulations had been set as barometers for calculating profiteering. h. No such procedure for calculation of profiteering had been provided under the CGST Act and CGST Rules. In this regard, reliance was placed on the case of Eternit Everest Ltd. vs. UOI, reported at 1997 (89) E.L.T. 28 (Mad.), where the Hon'ble Madras High Court had held that in absence of machinery provisions pertaining to determination and adjudication upon a claim or objection, the statutory provision would not be applicable. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. B.C. Srinivasa Setty, reported at (1981) 2 SCC 460, the Hon'ble Supreme Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c. The nature of real estate sector was unique for determining applicability of anti-profiteering provisions, especially considering the project life cycle, timing difference between availment of credit and payment of output tax liability, procurement of multiple inputs / input services for supplying the service and no one to one correlation between input and output. In light of the said facts, there ought to have been a standard methodology to determine the profiteering for real estate sector. He further submitted that in absence of prescribed method/formula for calculation of profiteering, following a method on case on case-to- case basis is arbitrary and thus, the report is liable to be rejected. V. Comparison of ratio of ITC to turnover for pre-GST period and GST period was not the correct mechanism for calculation of profiteering amount; a. The DGAP had arrived at the figures of alleged profiteering on the basis of the difference between the ratio of ITC to turnover under the pre-GST and GST period. It was submitted that using this formula for calculating the benefit of additional ITC accrued to him would never yield the correct quantum of profiteering. The comparison of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....credit in both scenarios. However, this would significantly vary the ratio as calculated by the DGAP to assess the benefit of credit; • Reversal of ITC due to receipt of Completion Certificate also had a bearing on ITC availed by the supplier/developer. Such a critical factor need to be given appropriate weight while making the final computation. However, the DGAP had added back such reversal without adducing any reasons for such addition. • In pre-GST regime, services were subject to Service Tax at rate of 15% but under GST, in most of the cases, the said services were taxable at 18%, therefore, there was an increase of 3% in ITC available to the Respondent No. 1 which was not due to any additional benefit but due to increase in rate of tax. This credit was available to the Respondent No. 1 even before GST and hence, the Respondent No. 1 could not be asked to transfer this additional credit to the customers. The impact on this account (due to increase in tax rate of services) was as follows - Particulars Pre-GST Post-GST ITC (assuming services of Rs. 100 received from a vendor) 15 18 Taxable turnover 120 120 % of Credit 12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Further, the DGAP had not considered the tax cost which was earlier blocked in the hands of Respondent No. 1. Hence, the above approach of comparison of ITC to turnover ratio for pre-GST and post GST period for a limited period instead of project duration was not a correct approach and profiteering computed on basis of same was liable to be set aside on this count itself. Credit to turnover ratio in pre-GST and GST regime: e. The credit to turnover ratio was not the correct method for computation of benefit of credit. The Respondent submitted that the following details which was a summary of the returns (ST-3) filed by him in the Service Tax regime: (Amount in Cr.) Particulars April 2016 to March 2017 April 2017 to June 2017 Change Remarks Cenvat Credit 23.11 6.91 -70.10% While the credit had gone down significantly (more than 70%), same was not the case with turnover which reduced by 23.44% only. This shows credit and turnover was not co-related Service tax net taxable turnover 169.00 129.37 -23.44% In view the above, the cenvat credit availed during the period April, 2016 to March, 2017 was Rs.23.11 cr., which reduced by 70.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ITC reversed could not be considered for the purpose of determining the benefit of ITC and accordingly, ITC reversed needed to be reduced from the total ITC to arrive at the benefit of ITC. Total ITC reversed was Rs. 14.43 cr. (Rs. 9.67 cr. reversed at the time of filing Form GSTR-3B and Rs. 4.76 cr. reversed from electronic cash ledger, details of which had been provided to the DGAP). Taking into consideration the above submissions, the revised profiteering calculation was detailed below:- S.No. Particulars Apr'16 to Jun'17 July'17 to Sep'19 A Credit of Service Tax Paid on Input Services/ITC of GST Availed (A) 30.02 66.76 B ITC reversal u/r 42, 43 on account of units unsold as on the date of receipt of occupation certificate (and on monthly basis thereafter) - (14.43) C Total Cenvat/ITC available [(A)+(B)] 30.02 52.33 D Turnover for flats as per Home-buyers List 1023.02 329.49 E Total Saleable Area (in SQF) (excl. Respondent No.2) 27,34,225 27,34,225 F Saleable Area (in SQF) relevant to turnover (excl. Respondent No.2) 13,90,900 16,79,580 G Relevant ITC [(C)*(F)/(E)] 15.27 32.14 Ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the price of services only. It was an admitted position that 1/3rd of the total amount charged was towards land and not towards the services provided by the Respondent No. 1. Accordingly, it was submitted that for the purpose of calculation of profiteering, if any, the value of land needed to be excluded. In this regard, reference could be drawn to the Order of this Authority in the case of M/s. Bhartiya City Developers Pvt. Ltd. The DGAP excluded value of land from his profiteering calculation in Table H of his Report and the same was upheld by this Authority. The relevant extract of order passed by this Authority was provided below: "21.. On the basis of the figures contained in Table- 'G' above the recalibrated base price and the excess collection (Profiteering) during the pre-GST and the post-GST periods, had been tabulated by the DGAP in Table-'H' below:- Table H (Amount in Rs.) S.No. P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore requested exclusion of these customers from the ambit of profiteering analysis being carried out by the DGAP. In respect of these flats, he had arrived at a revised agreement price after taking into account various factors including benefit of ITC, and the said revised agreement price was offered to customers. The customers were also given an option to cancel the booking in case he would not like to accept the revised agreement prices. In fact, in view of the details of home buyer list submitted by him on 05.08.2020, the revised prices were offered to a total of 150 customers out of which only 108 customers accepted the revised prices whereas 42 customers (28% of customers) chose to cancel the bookings. Further the renegotiated reduced prices were communicated with customers and upon acceptance of the said renegotiated reduced prices, agreement was entered into with the customers at such reduced prices. Since the renegotiation had taken place after 30.06.2017, he requested that these bookings should be treated at par with fresh negotiations after 30.06.2017. The DGAP had excluded post-GST bookings for the purpose of applying the benefit of ITC percentage. Therefore, bookings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he renegotiated reduced prices had been agreed after implementation of GST. Therefore, these flats needed to be excluded from the ambit of profiteering analysis. The relevant extract of order passed by this Authority in the above case was provided as follows: "11.... The DGAP has further reported that the Respondent was required to pass on the benefit of the additional ITC to his unit buyers who had booked his units in the pre-GST period and hence, for the purpose of calculation of profiteering, the turnover from the units booked in the pre-GST period has only been taken into consideration. " c. Since the prices were re-negotiated post GST, these bookings was at par with post-GST bookings excluded by the DGAP. In respect of these flats as well, the revised reduced agreement value was discussed and negotiated for the first time post introduction of GST and the said negotiation factored in the benefit of ITC available to him and prices were mutually agreed between the parties. Hence, these flats should be excluded from the purview of the scope of profiteering analysis. In this regard, he submitted that "3.7 The Promoter states that as per Section 171 of the Central Goods ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. In effect, it was the DGAP's contention that the Respondent No. 1 had profiteered to the extent of 12% GST collected on so called increased base price (i.e. Rs. 10 and 12% GST on top of it = Rs. 11.2 profiteering). Further, while arriving at the total alleged profiteering amount, the DGAP had incorrectly inflated the profiteering amount by adding 12% GST to the base price demanded by Respondent No. 1 and comparing it with the commensurate base price including 12% GST, without adducing grounds as to why this amount had been added. Hence, such computation was incorrect. Whatever amount was charged as GST by him, had been duly deposited in Government account. There had been no allegation that the amount collected as GST had not been paid to the Government. Once it was accepted that such amount was also tax and the public exchequer was not deprived of such sum, it failed to appeal to reason that the same tax amount could be demanded again from the Respondent No. 1 or return of such tax amount in the home buyers could be ordered. Further He submitted that he charged GST from his customers, over and above the value of services supplied by it, i.e., on ex-tax basis. It was also K undis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Respondent No. 1) from the recipient on the alleged profiteering amount had already been deposited with Government and there was no factual dispute by the DGAP on this aspect, he submitted that addition of 12% GST to calculate the alleged profiteering amount was incorrect, not sustainable and liable to be rejected and an amount of Rs. 2,36,97,409/- (22,11,75,815* 12/112) should be reduced from the total profiteering alleged by the DGAP. X. The proceedings initiated was in violation of the principles of natural justice; a. He (Respondent No. 1) was not afforded an opportunity to present his case by the Standing Committee, there was gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Since the proceedings initiated in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, it could not be considered as valid and the proceedings was liable to be dropped on this ground alone. b. No prima facie evidence was available against him and also the Standing Committee had neither provided any opportunity of hearing nor provided the reasons hence there was prima facie evidence of violation of the provisions of section 171 of the CGST Act. He further stated that he had already passed o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her submitted that the order required to be passed by the Authority under Section 171 would determine rights and liabilities of the said registered person with civil and/ penal consequences. c. The first principle of natural justice viz., audi alteram partem required that the person concerned should be heard. In other words, nobody : should be condemned unheard. One of the essential elements of hearing was communication of the grounds based on which action was proposed to be taken and a notice to show cause served such essential purpose so that opportunity to preliminarily rebut was provided. In support, He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank and Others v. Debasis Das and Others reported at (2003) 4 SCC 557, where the Hon'ble SC held that a notice apprises the party of the case it had to meet. The Court held: "15. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he have to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate enough so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such statutory provision or not. In the case of Union of India v. Hanil Era Textiles Ltd., reported at 2017 (349) ELT 384 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no order could be passed against a person without issuing a show cause notice to him. In the words of the Court: "....no order could be passed against a person without issuing a show cause notice to him/it. This would be in violation of the principles of natural justice and also infringe Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Audi Alteram Partem, as the basic principle of natural justice ensures an opportunity of fair hearing to the parties. Issuance of a show cause notice is a part and parcel of the aforesaid principle which provides that the parties are in a position to defend themselves adequately; after being aware of the exactness of the allegation against them." [Emphasis supplied] e. The Report consequent to investigation by the DGAP was neither a SCN nor could it be treated as substitute to a show cause notice however, from the hearing notice received by the Respondent No. 1, it appeared that this Authority had considered the Report of the DGAP as a show cause notice, which was not correct. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 2 has made objections which were already raised by the Respondent No.1 mentioned at para 29(1), (II), (IV), (VD, (IX) to (XT) and apart of these, he had inter alia stated; (1) The procedure followed not in accordance with Rule 128 & 129 of the CGST Rules 2017:- (a) The complaint was filed by the Applicant No.1 against Respondent No. 1 in respect of sale of flat by Respondent No.1 to him and he (Respondent No. 2) had neither raised nor collected any demand from Applicant No. 1 in pre or post GST period. Further, the Standing Committee had not examined any evidence pertaining to him (the Respondent No. 2) and merely on the basis of the fact that he had entered into Joint development agreement with Respondent No. 1, he had been added as a "Respondent No. 2" in the investigation. Since, the application was filed in respect of booking made with Respondent No. 1, the Standing Committee had limited his recommendation for investigation to Respondent No. 1 only. He further stated that in the absence of any nexus between the material and allegation, jurisdiction under rule 129 for referring the matter by Standing Committee to DGAP cannot be exercised. In the present case, there was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cordingly computed the credit to turnover ratio pre-GST and post-GST (by including his turnover and area) and computed the benefit required to be passed on. It was submitted that the DGAP had failed to understand that Respondent No. 1 and 2 were two separate legal entities and the allegation of profiteering, if any, needed to be examined qua each entity separately. The figures of two separate legal entities could not be artificially combined to calculate profiteering. (b). While the Respondent No. | might not had been eligible to avail credit of excise duty and VAT paid on inputs, the same was not true as regards the Respondent No. 2 as did not have to procure any such inputs. The entire burden of cost of construction was on the Respondent No. 1 in terms of the development agreement and the Respondent No. 2 did not (purchase any direct inputs /input services. The only credit availed by Respondent No. 2 in respect of Crescent Bay was in respect of the service tax charged by the Respondent No. 1 for the construction services. VAT was not applicable on the same in terms of the provisions under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The Respondent No. 2 submitted that sinc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed from the buyers. In this industry, there might be cases where advance was received by the suppliers/dealers even before the commencement of the projects. Likewise, units might be sold after the completion of the project as well. Thus, receiving of inputs/input services and taking credit of the same did not have any immediate/direct relation with the turnover in real estate sector. Accordingly, calculating profiteering on the basis of turnover could not reflect the correct outcome of benefit of credit to him. (iii). He was entitled to CENVAT credit / ITC of the Service Tax + KKC and GST respectively. He had not incurred any cost but was only paying the taxes charged by Respondent No. 1, as the entire cost of construction of Investor Component was to be borne by the Respondent No. 1 (iv). He has stated that the calculation of alleged profiteering based on the comparison of ratio of ITC to turnover for pre-GST period and GST period would lead to incorrect results and hence the method adopted by the DGAP was liable to be set aside as the method would result in incorrect computation of benefit for the following reasons/assumptions:- • In pre-GST regime, services we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... calculated separately for each entity, viz. the Respondent No. 1 and 2, based on the credit and turnover details of each of the entities separately. (b). He and the Respondent No. 1 were separate legal entities as section 171(2) of the CGST Act provides that; "(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 had actually resulted in a commensurate reduction in the price of the goods or services or both supplied by him." In view of the above, the Central Govt. was to constitute / empower an Authority to examined whether the input tax credits availed by a registered person had resulted in commensurate reduction in prices. ITC availed by him was independent of ITC availed by Respondent No. 1. Therefore, he needed to be examined independent of the examination in respect of the Respondent No. 1. (c). There was no procurement of inputs, input services and capital goods by him as the cost of construction was to be borne by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll similar cases. In order to quantify the benefit of ITC, it was necessary to quantify the credits available to the Respondent No. 1 in the pre-GST regime and also the credits available in the GST regime. Further, the Respondent No. 1 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 No. 1 collected or charged full GST from the customers or flat buyers. Therefore, Respondent No. 1 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 29.10.2020, the increase in ITC as a percentage of total taxable turnover availed by the Respondent No. 1 post-GST had 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 erstwhile pre-GST regime, various taxes and Cess were being levied by the Central Government and the State Governments, which got subsumed in the GST. Out of these taxes, the credit of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tigate the passing on the benefit to other flat buyers also. Similarly, the Respondent No. 1 cited the case of Shri Rishi Gupta vs. M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. 2018 VIL-04-NAA. In this case, the company was not the supplier of the Almirah and hence he had not violated the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence, there was no ground to investigate him in respect of other products as he was not a supplier. However, during the course of proceedings it was found that M/s. Flipkart had not refunded the extra GST to the buyers which was ordered to be refunded and it was accordingly refunded. Therefore, the above case did not help the cause of the Respondent No. 1. (c). Objection raised by the Respondents No. 1 at para 29 (IV):- The "Methodology and Procedure" had been notified by the Authority vide his Notification dated 28.03.2018 under Rule 126 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The main contours of the 'Procedure and Methodology' for passing on the benefits of reduction in the rate of tax and the benefit of ITC was enshrined in Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 itself which stated that "Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the ben....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been delegated to the Authority (hereinafter referred as "Authority') under Rule 126 of the above Rules as per the provisions of Section 164 of the above Act as such power was generally and widely available to all the judicial, quasi-judicial and statutory authorities to carry out his functions and duties and hence no special favour had been shown to the Authority while granting such power. The Authority had only been allowed to 'determine' the methodology and not to 'prescribe it' which it had to do keeping in view the facts of individual case. Since the functions and powers to be exercised by this Authority had been approved by competent bodies, the same was legal and binding on the Respondent No. 1. In light of above facts, quantum of profiteering was determined by the DGAP by taking into account the particular facts of each case. Hence, there could not be one-size-fits-all mathematical methodology. It was also submitted that the DGAP had not adopted any self-derived method for computing the profiteering amount, but had compared the ITC to turnover ratio in pre & post GST periods in the present case which was rational, logical & appropriate in terms of Section 171 of the CGST....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... charge GST @ 18% on Agreement for construction without any abatement. Since, the consideration was received as per Agreement to sell (towards Land) which was altogether separate from the Agreement for construction and did not levy GST, so no benefit was computed towards the value of Land. However, in the present case, there was a common agreement entered with the customers agreeing to the total price without bifurcation of amounts between Land and Construction. Further, the DGAP in his Report dated 29.10.2020 had considered GST @ 12% (after abatement for Land) which was mentioned in para-21 of the Report. Further, the case of M/s. Fusion Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. cited by the Respondent No. 1 did not support his contention, as in Fusion case, the DGAP had computed the benefit of ITC not passed on i.e. the profiteering 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 this Authority. (f). Objection raised by the Respondents No. 1 at para 29 (VII):-The Res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bookings and remaining 108 customers were forced to accept the proposal which did not pass on the appropriate benefit of ITC to them. Therefore, Respondent No. 1 was statutorily bound to pass on the due benefit to the buyers and cannot deprive these customers from the eligible benefit. The DGAP in his Report dated 29.10.2020 had computed the profiteering amount for these customers and duly considered the benefit passed on by the Respondent No. 1. (g). Objection raised by the Respondents No. 1 at para 29 (VIII):- As Stated in para-5 of the Report dated 29.10.2020, the investigation covered the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019 and any transaction executed post 30.09.2019 was outside the scope of present investigation. (h). Objection raised by the Respondents No. 1 at para 29 (IX):- Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Chapter XV of the Rules, required the supplier of goods or services to pass on the benefit of the tax rate reduction or ITC to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in price. Price included both the base price and the tax paid on it. If any supplier had charged more tax from the recipients, the aforesaid statutory provisions would require t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SEBI v. Akshya Infrastructure (P) Ltd., (2014) 11 SCC 112 had held that "It is by now settled proposition of law that mere breach of rules of natural justice is not sufficient. Such breach of rules of natural justice must also entail avoidable prejudice to the respondent. " In the light of the above, DGAP has submitted that there was no violation of principle of natural justice or any prejudice had been caused to the Respondent No. 1. (j). Objection raised by the Respondents No. 2 at para 30 (I):- In this regard, DGAP had observed from the Sale Agreement entered with the Applicant No. | that the Respondent No. 2 was a party and signed the said agreement. Therefore, the Agreement was a Tripartite where Respondent No. 2 was a necessary party and thus, participation of the Respondent No. 2 in the said transactions was undeniable. Further, in the impugned project, the CENVAT/ITC on the purchase of inputs, input services and capital goods was availed by the Respondent No. 1 for the whole project including the purchases made towards the unit pertaining to the Respondent No. 2. Therefore, the Respondent No. 1 being a GST registered person was als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Applicant, mentioned at serial no. 948 of Annex-36. Similarly, the above profiteering amount included an amount of Rs 1,23,35,442/- (including GST @12% on the base amount of Rs. 1,10,13,787/-) which is required to be passed on by the respondent to the Respondent No. 2 for 62 units who in turn is required to passed on the same to his customers. The buyers and unit no. wise break-up of this amount of Rs. 1,23,35,442/- is given in Annex-37. This amount does not include profiteering amount pertaining to the Applicant as the Respondent No. 2 has not raised or collected any demand from the Applicant during the period July, 2017 to September, 2019." 32. The above said clarifications dated 11.02.2021 of the DGAP, have been supplied to the Respondent No. 1 and 2 as well as the Applicant No.1 for their consolidated submissions on it. Accordingly the Respondent No.1 and 2 vide letters dated 09.03.2021 have submitted their replies on the above said clarifications of the DGAP wherein they have reiterated their previous arguments Y which have already been clarified by the DGAP. 33. This Authority has granted two hearings on 09.03.2021 and 16.03.2022 to the interested parties wherein the Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 2017 and Rules made thereunder. The DGAP had concluded that the benefit of Rs. 30,76,57,916/- (including GST@ 12%) comprising Rs. 29,53,22,474/- and Rs. 1,23,35,442/- to 851 home buyers and the Respondent No. 2 respectively was to be passed on by the Respondent No. 1 for the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019. The DGAP had also noticed that the Respondent No. 1 had passed on the ITC benefit of Rs. 7,41,46,659/- to 851 home buyers including Applicant No. 1 as out of 1420 flats which were available with the Respondent No. 1 for sale during the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019, 195 flats had booked in pre-GST period and no consideration received in post GST period, 50 flats were booked after Completion Certificate, 41 had sold on negotiated price after adjustment of ITC benefit, on 01 flat required ITC benefit was passed on and 283 were unsold as on 30.09.2019. Therefore the benefit of Rs. 22,11,75,815/- (including GST) is required to be passed on to 750 home buyers for the aforesaid period. The DGAP has also observed that the benefit of ITC in respect of above said 195 flats should also be calculated when the consideration was received from these home buyers, by taking int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....how cause notices have been issued during the proceedings, c. Proceedings are time-barred in terms of rule 133 of the CGST Rule, 2017. d. Improper Constitution of authority in absence of the judicial member e. Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 and the rules made thereunder are unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. f. Rules 126, 127 and 133 of the CGST Rules 2017 suffer from the vice of excessive delegation. g. Not restricting investigation in respect of Applicant only. h. Reversal of credit. i. Exclusion of value of land. j. Renegotiation of agreement. 39. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 have questioned the methodology of determination of profiteered amount claiming that that no methodology has been provided under GST laws, for the calculation of the benefits and their distribution. The Authority finds that provisions for passing of the benefits of reduction in the rate of tax and ITC 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... like turnover, saleable area, total area, sold area etc. during the pre-GST in the post GST area, the DGAP has come to a conclusion, calculating the amount of the profiteering in the given facts and situation. As such, the Authority concurs with the methodology adopted by the DGAP and rejects the contention of the arguments raised by the Respondents. 40. With regard to the contention of the Respondent No. 1 and 2 on violation of the principle of natural justice, it is observed that Authority has issued a Notice dated 06.11.2020 directing to explain why the DGAP's Report dated 29.10.2020, wherein the DGAP had calculated profiteered amount against the Respondent No. 1 and 2 respectively under section 171 of the CGST Act 2017, should not be accepted and their liability for profiteering should not be determined under section 171 of the Act. They were directed to file their reply to the findings in the said Report. It may be noted here that DGAP has initiated investigation based on the complaint received from the Applicant and the whole proceedings initiated and investigated by DGAP have been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the law. The DGAP report has come to a prima....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... upon the intent of the Legislature in enactment of such provision. The meaning and intention of the legislature and legislation must govern and these are to be ascertained not only from the phraseology but also by considering its nature, its design and consequences which would follow from construing it one way or other. It is an undeniable fact that the anti-profiteering provisions provided under the CGST Act, 2017 and Rules made thereunder are a beneficial enactment with a view to provide relief to the common person. The statute has not provided for any consequences for failure to adhere to the time limit and it has not provided that in case of non adherence, the whole proceedings would be null and void. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajsekher Gogoi vs State of Assam AIR 2001 SC 2313 p2315 has held that when the consequences of nullification on failure to comply with a prescribed requirement is provided by the statute itself, there can be no manner of doubt that such statutory requirement must be interpreted as mandatory. It is obvious in any other case such provision is directory. The CGST Act, 2017 or rules made thereunder have not provided for any consequence for failur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. (II). consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. (III). in case where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event, the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. (IV). It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded in computing the period under Section 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period (s) of limitation for instituting proceedings over limits (wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of India, are without proper appreciation of the law. The Parliament as well as all the State Legislatures have delegated the task of framing of the Rules under the CGST Act, 2017 on the Central Government as per the provisions of Section 164 and 171(3) of the CGST Act. Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the Rules do not infringes upon the fundamental right of equality or right to carry on business of any individual. The mandate of Section 171 is limited to the extent of protecting the interest of consumers by ensuring that both the benefits of tax reduction and ITC, which are the sacrifices of precious tax revenue made from the kitty of the Central and the State Governments, are passed on to the end consumers who bear the burden of the tax. The intent of this provision is the welfare of end consumers, who are unorganized and vulnerable and it is the bounden duty of the Government to ensure that the benefit of the reduction of the tax or the benefit of ITC is passed on to the end consumers. Both the Respondents are absolutely free to exercise their rights to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, as per the provisions of Article 19 (1) (g) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ful consideration at several levels and therefore, there is no ground for claiming that the present delegation is excessive. Since the functions and powers to be exercised by this Authority have been approved by competent bodies, the same are legal and binding on the Respondents. Further, the procedure & methodology for determining the benefits has already been prescribed in Section 171 (1) under the Act itself and hence, it is not required to be prescribed separately. 45. The Respondents have also contended that investigation cannot go beyond the application filed by the Applicant No 1. In this regard, Authority finds that section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that in the event of any benefit of ITC or reduction of rate of tax, there must be a commensurate reduction in prices of any supply of goods or services. Therefore, the law prescribes that benefit of reduction in the rate of tax or benefit of increase in the ITC should result in commensurate reduction in prices of any supply and every supply. As observed by the Authority in the earlier paragraphs that anti-profiteering provisions are beneficial provisions, which aims to extend the relief of reduction of taxes or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ority in this regard. The Authority finds that, the value of land is deducted from the turnover as and when the suppliers of construction service raise separate bills/invoices for such sale of land. In such cases the land is a item of sale at a negotiated price between a seller and a buyer and there are separate bills/ invoices for sale of such land and for supply of construction service. In such cases there is a clear bifurcation in these agreements with respect to such two items- one of sale and the other of supply. In such cases, both in the pre GST regime as well as the GST regime, the Service Tax or GST as applicable was charged only on the value of supply of construction service. In such cases, the value of land which is a determinate value as per record was excluded from the turnover of receipts during the respective periods. The facts in this case are not the same. Hence, this contention of the Respondent is not tenable. 48. It has been also claimed by the Respondent that Agreements executed before implementation of GST were taken / offered for renegotiation after July 2017 and such agreements should be taken out of this proceedings. Out of the said 150 home buyers, 108 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der as per the details mentioned in Annexure-'A'. 50. It is also found that the Respondent No. 2 was also required to pass on the benefit of ITC @ 10.51 % of the turnover, which is calculated to the tune of Rs. 1,23,35,442/- to 30 flat buyers other than the Applicant No.1 as he had received consideration only from 30 flat buyers/recipients out of 62. The details of eligible homebuyers/recipients to whom supply has been made by Respondent no. 2 in the impugned Project and from whom additional amount on account of benefit of ITC had been realized by the Respondent no. 2 during period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019 along with details of such additional amount is given in Annexure-'B' to this Order. 51. Accordingly, this Authority under Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017 orders that the Respondents shall reduce the prices to be realized from the buyers v of the flats/recipients of the above Project commensurate with the benefit of ITC received by him as detailed above. 52. This Authority as per Rule 136 of the CGST Rules 2017 directs the Commissioners of CGST/SGST Mumbai, Maharashtra to monitor compliance of this order under the supervision of the DGAP by ensuring that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....milar contravention may has taken place with his other projects. This Authority in terms of Rule 133 (5)(a) of the CGST Rules 2017 also directs the DGAP to investigate profiteering in relation to other Projects executed by the Respondent No. 1 and 2, if any, under the provision of section 171 of the CGST Act 2017. 56. In view of the prevailing Covid 19 pandemic and the Hon'ble Supreme Court Order dated 10.01.2022 passed in M.A. no. 21/2022 in M.A. no. 665/2021 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 as mentioned inparagraph 41supra, this Order having been passed today falls within the limitation prescribed under Rule 133(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 57, A copy each of this order be supplied, free of cost, to the DGAP, the Applicant No. 1, the Respondent No. 1 & 2, Commissioners CGST/SGST, Mumbai,/Maharashtra, the Secretary (Town and Country Planning) Govt. of Maharashtra and Maharashtra RERA for necessary action. File be consigned after completion. Annexure:- Annexure-'A' in Pages | to 9 and Annexure 'B' in Page 1. ============= Document 1 M/s. L&T Parel Project LLP (Project: L&T Crescent Bay) S.No. Name of Customer Unit No Agreement Value (Exclu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 CBT06F3302 99,282,720 10,588,906 1,270,669 1,246,441 183,926 20 Pradeep Mallick 1,062,515 CBTO6F1201 90,289,720 4,592,686 551,122 540,614 87,584 21 Hussainy F Rangwala CBT06F1601 94,358,974 10,071,912 1,208,629 1,185,585 183,926 22 Mohan Khanna 453,030 1,001,659 CBT02F0303 37,589,175 203,542 24,425 23,959 3,967 23 Pradeep Charan 19,993 CBT02F0503 37,944,175 1,930,490 231,659 227,242 37,275 24 Dinesh Sanghvi 189,967 CBT02F0504 37,944,175 1,930,490 231,659 227,242 37,275 25 Siddharth Gopalkrishnan 189,967 CBT02F0704 38,299,175 1,948,240 233,789 229,331 37,275 192,056 26 Rahul M. Jain CBT02F0304 37,589,175 1,912,740 229,529 225,152 37,275 187,877 27 Vedavati Sharma CBT02F0904 38,654,175 1,965,990 235,919 231,421 37,275 194,146 28 Priti Dugar CBT02F0703 38,299,175 1,948,240 233,789 229,331 37,275 192,056 29 Rita Ajay Parekh CBT02F0103 37,234,175 203,575 24,429 23,963 4,004 19,959 30 Janmejaya Ku....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CBT06F3601 94,762,760 9,166,682 1,100,002 1,079,029 183,926 895,102 53 ITC Ltd. CBT02F3203 38,851,360 1,586,304 190,357 186,727 36,120 150,607 54 ITC Ltd. CBT02F3204 38,851,360 1,586,304 190,357 186,727 36,120 150,607 55 ITC Ltd. CBT02F3303 38,894,360 1,588,024 190,563 186,930 36,120 150,810 56 ITC Ltd. CBT02F3304 38,894,360 1,588,024 190,563 186,930 36,120 150,810 57 ITC Ltd. CBT02F3604 39,023,360 1,593,184 191,182 187,537 36,120 151,417 58 ITC Ltd. CBT02F3704 39,066,360 1,594,904 191,389 187,739 36,120 151,619 59 ITC Ltd. CBT02F3703 39,066,360 1,594,904 191,389 187,739 36,120 151,619 60 ITC Ltd. CBT02F3803 39,109,360 1,596,624 191,595 187,942 36,120 151,822 61 ITC Ltd. CBT02F3804 39,109,360 1,596,624 191,595 187,942 36,120 151,822 62 ITC Ltd. CBT02F3603 39,023,360 1,593,184 191,182 187,537 36,120 151,417 63 Sanjeev Jain CBT05F0201 54,659,525 2,781,257 333,751 327,387 54,075 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CBT05F4602 62,770,775 3,186,820 382,418 375,127 54,075 321,052 87 Lalit Jalan CBT05F4702 56,590,775 203,413 24,410 23,944 3,822 20,122 88 Jagdish Pandurang Nayak CBT05F2201 48,865,775 203,952 24,474 24,008 4.426 19,581 89 Virendra Pukharaj Karnavat CBT05F1801 47,835,775 1,740,041 208,805 204,824 38,561 166,262 90 Sanjay Kumar Bajaj CBT05F1202 46,290,775 2,362,820 283,538 278,132 54,075 224,057 91 Sunil Agarwal CBT05F2401 49,380,775 2,517,320 302,078 296,319 54,075 242,244 92 Ramnath R. Mukhija CBT05F1601 47,320,775 202,803 24,336 23,872 4,542 19,330 93 Debika Mukhija CBT05F1606 38,961,300 202,719 24,326 23,862 4,498 19,364 94 Harsh Bapna CBT05F2206 40,221,300 203,916 24,470 24,003 4,386 19,618 95 Sudarshan Bajoria CBT05F2403 40,641,300 203,875 24,465 23,999 4,340 19,658 96 Nipun Aggarwal CBT05F1706 40,221,300 203,916 24,470 24,003 4,386 19,618 97 Jayant Hirji Shah CBT05F3306 43,581,300 2,218,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1703 41,271,300 203,816 24,458 23,992 4,274 19,717 117 Dias Melwyn Julius Pio CBT05F2903 43,791,300 2,228,940 267,473 262,373 44,100 218,273 118 Sameer Suhaschandra Nemavarkar CBT05F2503 42,951,300 203,667 24,440 23,974 4,107 19,867 119 Highrank Towers Pvt. Ltd. CBTOSF3103 44,211,300 203,562 24,427 23,962 3,990 19,972 120 Manu Sawroop Dua CBT05F1106 38,961,300 1,987,440 238,493 233,946 44,100 189,846 121 Mamta Kanal 122 Amitabh Jain 123 Piyush Goenka 124 Megadesh Associates 125 Dhruv Phophalia 126 Nagesh Dinkar Pinge CBT05F1906 40,641,300 2,071,440 248,573 243,833 44,100 199,733 CBT05F0706 39,171,300 1,997,940 239,753 235,182 44,100 191,082 CBT05F2803 43,581,300 2,218,440 266,213 261,137 44,100 217,037 CBT05F2303 42,531,300 2,165,940 259,913 254,957 44,100 210,857 CBT05F2703 49,620,900 2,520,420 302,450 296,684 44,100 252,584 CBT05F4106 51,561,300 203,055 24,367 23,902 3,421 20,481 127 Shivakumar Lakshminarayan CBT05F3506 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 44,100 215,801 150 Ramakrishnan Ramamurthi CBT05F2006 40,851,300 203,855 24,463 23,996 4,318 19,678 151 Param Capital Research Pvt. Ltd. CBT05F3006 42,951,300 203,667 24,440 23,974 4,107 19,867 152 Abhishek Keshav Hodavdekar CBT02F3003 41,130,360 2,088,768 250,652 245,873 36,120 209,753 153 Birendra Agarwal CBT05F3906 52,716,300 202,988 24,359 23,894 3,346 20,548 154 Ashish Nandkishor Sharma CBT02F2203 39,754,360 2,019,968 242,396 237,774 36,120 201,654 155 Mihir Sanghani 156 Nisha Kaur Uberoi 157 Aditya Goenka CBT05F3803 52,506,300 2,664,690 319,763 313,666 44,100 269,566 CBT05F4403 53,766,300 2,727,690 327,323 321,082 44,100 276,982 CBT05F4006 52,926,300 2,685,690 322,283 316,138 44,100 272,038 158 Ashish Gala CBT05F3503 51,876,300 2,633,190 315,983 309,958 44,100 265,858 159 Harsha Parekh CBT02F2304 39,926,360 2,028,568 243,428 238,787 36,120 202,667 160 Aniruddha Vijay Nafrey CBT02F3104 41,302,360 2,097,368 251,684 246,8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,038 183 ITC Ltd. CBT05F4503 48,726,300 1,988,427 238,611 234,062 44,100 189,962 184 ITC Ltd. CBT05F4506 48,726,300 1,988,427 238,611 234,062 44,100 189,962 185 ITC Ltd. CBT05F4703 48,831,300 1,992,627 239,115 234,556 44,100 190,456 186 ITC Ltd. CBT05F4706 48,831,300 1,992,627 239,115 234,556 44,100 190,456 187 Rajendra Kumar Singhi CBT05F4906 48,936,300 1,996,827 239,619 235,050 44,100 190,950 188 Garima Deveshwar Bahl CBT06F3501 94,639,595 9,154,982 1,098,598 1,077,651 183,926 893,725 189 Drupad Shah CBT02F4004 44,140,360 2,239,268 268,712 263,589 36,120 227,469 190 Sunil H Jain CBT04F4103 42,850,360 2,174,768 260,972 255,996 36,120 219,876 191 Prabhat Kumar Pani CBT04F4403 42,847,556 203,011 24,361 23,897 3,372 20,525 192 Madhu Vishal Gadodia CBT02F0706 31,680,194 1,610,260 193,231 189,547 29,400 160,147 193 Dharmesh Pranvallabh Motla CBT06F4403 72,124,250 7,688,544 922,625 905,034 129,360 775,674 194 Shilpa Kapoor L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11,675 203,558 24,427 214 Pushkar Jauhari 23,961 3,985 19,976 CBT04F0404 37,766,675 203,525 24,423 215 Mayur Desai 23,957 3,948 CBT04F0803 20,009 38,476,675 203,460 24,415 23,950 216 Sujay Anthony Derrick Kamath 3,875 20,075 CBT05F1104 42,039,725 205,886 24,706 217 Deepa Deosthalee 24,235 4,586 19,649 CBT05F0903 39,591,300 2,018,940 242,273 218 Savitridevi Mall 237,653 44,100 CBT04F3603 193,553 42,162,360 2,140,368 219 Sawant Pratap Singh 256,844 251,947 36,120 215,827 CBT06F0301 86,086,470 9,203,299 1,104,396 220 Shalini Baheti 1,083,339 183,926 CBT06F1802 899,412 91,169,470 9,737,014 221 Rohinton Rustom Mehta 1,168,442 1,146,163 183,926 962,237 CBT04F4404 39,367,360 1,606,944 192,833 222 Farooq Siddiqi 189,157 36,120 153,037 CBT06F3304 70,543,743 3,582,187 429,862 223 Suresh Choithram Vaswani 421,666 61,600 360,066 CBT06F3403 70,006,750 3,555,338 426,641 224 Suresh Kumar Madathil 418,506 61,600 356,906 CBT04F4004 43,280,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 244,460 239,799 36,120 203,679 247 Puneet Varma CBT04F2404 40,098,360 2,037,168 244,460 239,799 36,120 203,679 248 Nirav Deepak Patel CBT04F3003 41,130,360 2,088,768 250,652 245,873 36,120 209,753 249 Pradumna Kanodia CBT04F2304 39,926,360 2,028,568 243,428 238,787 36,120 202,667 250 K.K. Silk Mills Ltd. CBT04F3203 41,474,360 2,105,968 252,716 247,898 36,120 211,778 251 Maneesh Ajmani CBT04F3604 42,162,360 203,060 24,367 23,903 3,427 20,476 252 Amitabh Chaturvedi CBT04F3303 41,646,360 2,114,568 253,748 248,910 36,120 212,790 253 Dipti Parikh CBT04F3103 41,302,360 2,097,368 251,684 246,885 36,120 210,765 254 Nihir Parikh CBT04F3004 41,130,360 2,088,768 250,652 245,873 36,120 209,753 255 Kapil Seth CBT04F4003 42,850,360 203,010 24,361 23,897 3,372 20,525 256 Gaurav Narain Bahadur CBT04F3904 42,334,360 2,148,968 257,876 252,959 36,120 216,839 257 Kanchan Mulchand Dedhia CBT04F3703 42,334,360 2,148,968 257,876 252,95....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T05F3602 53,758,275 2,736,195 328,343 322,083 54,075 268,008 281 Aparna Mohan CBT05F3202 52,728,275 203,663 24,440 23,974 4,102 19,871 282 Sumit Sinha CBT05F0702 53,372,025 203,618 24,434 23,968 4,053 19,916 284 Krishnan Subramaniam 283 Harkishan D. Chatlani 285 Reshma Haresh Jethwani CBT05F3504 54,324,725 203,141 24,377 23,912 3,518 20,394 CBT05F2704 52,504,725 203,250 24,390 23,925 3,640 20,285 CBT05F4302 61,998,275 3,148,195 377,783 370,580 54,075 316,505 286 Paul Joseph CBT05F3704 54,779,725 203,115 24,374 23,909 3,489 20,421 287 R. S. Estates CBT05F5101 64,058,275 203,015 24,362 23,897 3,377 20,521 288 Surendranath Ravi Rosha CBT05F3902 60,968,275 3,096,695 371,603 364,518 54,075 310,443 289 Dinesh J Hinduja CBT05F4505 56,599,725 203,015 24,362 23,897 3,376 20,521 290 Sri Gopal Investment Ventures Ltd CBT05F0301 54,917,025 2,794,132 335,296 328,903 54,075 274,828 291 Suchita Kasbekar CBT05F0902 56,462,025 2,871,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 46,677,025 2,458,443 295,013 289,388 54,075 235,313 CBT05F1802 49,123,275 2,504,445 300,533 294,803 54,075 240,728 CBTOSF1605 44,314,725 2,258,392 271,007 265,840 47,775 218,065 CBT05F1604 44,314,725 2,258,392 271,007 265,840 47,775 218,065 CBT05F2404 46,134,725 203,698 24,444 23,978 4,142 19,836 CBT05F1804 44,769,725 203,811 24,457 23,991 4,269 19,723 CBT05F2002 49,638,275 2,530,195 303,623 297,834 54,075 243,759 CBT05F2004 45,224,725 203,773 24,453 23,987 4,226 19,761 317 Ajay L. Agarwal CBT05F2305 44,769,725 205,811 24,697 24,226 4,269 19,958 318 Camden Realty Pvt. Ltd. CBT05F1005 42,949,725 2,190,142 262,817 257,806 47,775 210,031 319 Aditya Lakhanpal CBT05F0505 47,499,725 203,592 24,431 23,965 4,023 19,942 320 Vandana Lal CBT05F0304 47,044,725 2,394,892 287,387 281,908 47,775 234,133 321 Anindo Mukherjee CBT05F0504 47,499,725 2,417,642 290,117 284,586 47,775 236,811 322 Shrem Financial Pvt. L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,452 24,414 23,949 3,866 20,083 CBT04F0506 30,000,600 203,500 24,420 23,954 3,920 20,034 CBT04F0902 31,260,600 203,359 24,403 23,938 3,762 20,176 CBT04F0705 30,280,600 203,468 24,416 23,951 3,884 20,067 CBT04F0602 30,840,600 203,405 24,409 23,943 3,813 20,130 CBT04F0605 30,140,600 1,533,280 183,994 180,485 29,400 151,085 349 Aditya Surendra Bedre CBT04F1702 32,380,600 1,645,280 197,434 193,669 29,400 164,269 350 Orient Glazes Private Limited * CBT04F0102 30,140,600 1,533,280 183,994 180,485 29,400 151,085 351 Nahar Colours and Coating Private L CBT04F0202 30,280,600 1,540,280 184,834 181,309 29,400 151,909 352 Rafique Amir Kapadia CBT04F1406 31,260,600 203,359 24,403 23,938 3,762 20,176 353 Bhanu Vohra CBT02F1805 31,820,600 1,617,280 194,074 190,373 29,400 160,973 354 Jazeel R Mehta CBT04F0801 31,120,600 203,374 24,405 23,940 3,779 20,161 355 Sanjay Khattry CBT02F1406 31,260,600 1,589,280 190,714 187,077 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 195,317 29,400 165,917 378 Sandeep C. Chandalia CBT02F0902 30,770,600 1,564,780 187,774 184,193 29,400 154,793 379 Prasad R. Ankalam 380 Priyatam Kumar 381 Vivek Hirji Visaria 382 Sudhakar Bokare CBT02F0505 30,210,600 1,536,780 184,414 180,897 29,400. 151,497 CBT02F1601 31,750,600 1,613,780. 193,654 189,961 29,400 160,561 CBT02F1506 31,610,600 1,606,780 192,814 189,137 29,400 159,737 CBT04F1006 30,910,600 1,571,780 188,614 185,017 29,400 155,617 383 Aniruddha Deshmukh CBT04F1506 31,610,600 1,606,780 192,814 189,137 29,400 159,737 384 Vijay Kumar Vaidyanathan CBT04F1505 31,610,600 1,606,780 192,814 189,137 29,400 159,737 385 Shwetal Uday Goraksha CBT02F1501 31,750,600 203,307 24,397 23,932 3,704 20,228 386 Prataprai Chandulal Mehta CBT04F1606 31,750,600 1,613,780 193,654 189,961 29,400 160,561 387 Bhanu Vohra CBT02F1806 31,820,600 1,617,280 194,074 190,373 29,400 160,973 388 Sunita Vinayak Namjoshi CBT02F2002 32,100,600 1,631....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....793 411 Vikram Limaye CBT02F1801 32,030,600 203,278 24,393 23,928 3,671 20,257 412 Vikram Limaye CBT02F1802 32,030,600 203,278 24,393 23,928 3,671 20,257 5 S.No. Name of Customer Unit No Agreement Value (Excluding Taxes) Demands raised and advances received Post Benefit of ITC claimed to have GST i.e. 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019 (Excluding Taxes) GST @12% on BSP Profiteering Amount to been passed on as be passed on per the DGAP's Report, if any Further Benefit to be passed on (Incl. GST) 413 Sanjay Nagar CBT02F1602 31,890,600 1,620,780 194,494 190,785 414 Suraj Shah 29,400 161,385 CBT02F1905 32,310,600 1,641,780 197,014 415 Ashok Daswani 193,257 29,400 163,857 CBT02F0106 29,790,600 1,515,780 181,894 178,425 416 Manoj N. Padbidri 29,400 149,025 CBT02F0805 30,770,600 1,564,780 187,774 184,193 417 Sunita Kaura 29,400 154,793 CBT02F1606 31,890,600 1,620,780 194,494 418 Harish J. Maheshwary 190,785 29,400 161,385 CBT06F2503 66,968,000 3,403,400 408....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Preeti Kalpesh Mehta CBT02F2302 31,105,800 1,580,040 189,605 185,990 27,720 442 Velayuthan Coimbatore 158,270 CBT04F0201 30,630,600 1,557,780 186,934 183,369 29,400 153,969 443 Mangesh Paradkar CBT02F0806 29,720,600 1,512,280 181,474 178,014 29,400 148,614 444 Roshni Sarosh Wadia CBT02F2506 31,369,800 1,593,240 191,189 187,543 27,720 445 Sandeep Kumar Singh 159,823 CBT02F2206 30,973,800 1,573,440 188,813 185,213 27,720 157,493 446 Charulata S. Sankhla CBT02F1405 31,610,600 1,606,780 192,814 189,137 29,400 159,737 447 Rajeev Desai CBT06F0703 61,468,000 3,128,400 375,408 368,250 61,600 306,650 448 Kishore Venkata Ramakrishna Chavva CBT02F2306 31,105,800 1,580,040 189,605 185,990 27,720 158,270 449 Vivek Jhamb CBT04F2801 32,425,800 1,646,040 197,525 193,759 27,720 166,039 450 Rachna Agarwal CBT02F1202 31,330,600 1,592,780 191,134 187,489 29,400 158,089 451 Yugesh Goutam CBT06F1704 62,249,000 5,460,009 655,201 642,709 106,185 536....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 30,350,600 1,543,780 185,254 181,721 29,400 152,321 475 Monika M Bhasin CBT02F4001 33,349,800 1,692,240 203,069 199,197 27,720 171,477 476 Santosh Jain CBT02F4105 33,481,800 1,698,840 203,861 199,974 27,720 172,254 477 Prasad Patwardhan CBT04F2205 30,973,800 203,196 24,384 23,919 3,580 20,339 478 Sumit Yagnick CBT04F2206 30,973,800 1,573,440 188,813 185,213 27,720 157,493 479 Husain Fakhruddin Pedhiwala CBT02F2606 31,501,800 1,599,840 191,981 188,320 27,720 160,600 480 Dipak Lavji Desai CBT02F0105 29,790,600 1,515,780 181,894 178,425 29,400 149,025 481 Arijit Dasgupta CBT02F2602 31,501,800 1,599,840 191,981 188,320 27,720 160,600 482 Sonal Dharia CBT02F4005 33,349,800 1,692,240 203,069 199,197 27,720 171,477 483 Sandhya Shah CBT02F4006 33,349,800 1,692,240 203,069 199,197 27,720 171,477 484 Peeyush Arya CBT02F2806 31,765,800 1,613,040 193,565 189,874 27,720 162,154 485 Jeevan Lal Gupta & Sons HUF CBT02F2801 31,765,800 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....27,720 162,348 508 Kinjal Heeralal Doshi CBT02F2902 31,798,800 1,614,690 193,763 190,068 27,720 162,348 509 Deepak Munnalal Jain CBT02F2702 31,534,800 1,601,490 192,179 188,515 27,720 160,795 510 Shardindu Vajpayee CBT05F5001 67,663,275 3,431,445 411,773 403,922 54,075 349,847 511 Shilpa Chitre CBT04F2302 31,765,800 1,613,040 193,565 189,874 27,720 162,154 512 Ramkrishan Sharma CBT04F3501 33,349,800 1,692,240 203,069 199,197 27,720 171,477 513 Promila Bachan Singh Sial CBT04F3002 32,689,800 1,659,240 199,109 195,312 27,720 167,592 514 Ramesh N. Subramanyam CBT06F2104 65,593,000 3,334,650 400,158 392,528 61,600 330,928 515 AF TRADING PVT LTD CBT02F2906 31,897,800 1,619,640 194,357 190,651 27,720 162,931 516 Shruti Lamba CBT04F2902 32,557,800 203,041 24,365 23,900 3,406 20,495 6 S.No. Name of Customer Unit No Agreement Value (Excluding Taxes) Demands raised and advances received Post GST i.e. 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019 (Excluding Taxes) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....F3606 30,412,800 1,241,262 148,951 146,111 27,720 118,391 539 ITC Ltd. CBT02F3505 30,379,800 1,239,942 148,793 145,956 27,720 118,236 540 ITC Ltd. CBT02F3706 30,445,800 1,242,582 149,110 146,267 27,720 118,547 541 ITC Ltd. CBT02F3506 30,379,800 1,239,942 148,793 145,956 27,720 118,236 542 ITC Ltd. CBT02F3601 30,412,800 1,241,262 148,951 146,111 27,720 118,391 543 ITC Ltd. CBT05F4603 48,778,800 1,990,527 238,863 234,309 44,100 190,209 544 ITC Ltd. CBT05F4606 48,778,800 1,990,527 238,863 234,309 44,100 190,209 545 ITC Ltd. CBT05F4803 48,883,800 1,994,727 239,367 234,803 44,100 190,703 546 ITC Ltd. CBT05F4806 48,883,800 1,994,727 239,367 234,803 44,100 190,703 547 ITC Ltd. 548 Ekta Sikka 549 Abhay Patkar 550 KSS Kowshik CBT02F3301 30,313,800 1,237,302 148,476 145,645 27,720 117,925 CBT02F2202 30,973,800 203,196 24,384 23,919 3,580 20,339 CBT04F2702 31,897,800 1,619,640 194,357 190,651 27,720 162,931 CB....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,740 209,009 205,024 27,720 177,304 573 Kiran Malhotra 574 Avan Aspy Cooper CBT04F2905 32,557,800 1,652,640 198,317 194,536 27,720 166,816 CBT04F3001 33,349,800 1,692,240 203,069 199,197 27,720 171,477 575 Sahid Arshi Pathan CBT04F3506 33,349,800 1,692,240 203,069 199,197 27,720 171,477 576 Roda Nadir Turel CBT04F4401 34,009,800 1,725,240 207,029 203,081 27,720 175,361 577 Lakshmi Narayanaswamy CBT06F2903 69,718,000 7,435,890 892,307 875,293 129,360 745,933 578 Sanjiv Pendyala CBT04F3306 33,085,800 202,992 24,359 23,895 3,351 20,543 579 Nainesh Shah CBT02F3105 33,151,800 1,682,340 201,881 198,032 27,720 170,312 580 Rajendra Arora CBT04F4701 34,339,800 202,883 24,346 23,882 3,229 20,653 581 Aruna Malika Oberoi CBT04F4703 43,280,360 2,196,268 263,552 258,527 36,120 222,407 582 Jyotsna Viriyala CBT04F4503 43,280,360 2,196,268 263,552 258,527 36,120 222,407 583 Sanji Aswani CBT04F3102 33,811,800 1,715,340 205,841 201,916....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 Khushnama Zubin Davar CBT05F2402 49,380,775 203,911 24,469 24,003 4,380 19,623 607 Ronak Lalit Shah CBT04F3706 33,943,800 1,721,940 206,633 202,693 27,720 174,973 608 Mayank Gupta CBT02F1402 32,660,600 1,659,280 199,114 195,317 29,400 165,917 609 Ajay Kapur CBT05F5202 66,395,963 3,368,079 404,170 396,463 54,075 342,388 610 Rajiv Kantilal Shah CBT04F3705 32,623,800 1,655,940 198,713 194,924 27,720 167,204 611 Umesh Sharma CBT05F2202 60,453,275 3,070,945 368,513 361,487 54,075 307,412 612 Mahadeo Baburao Mudras CBT04F3701 34,339,800 202,883 24,346 23,882 3,229 20,653 613 Rupa Paresh Shah CBT04F4205 34,603,800 202,861 24,343 23,879 3,204 20,675 614 Pinky Nilesh Jain CBT05F2605 45,452,225 203,754 24,450 23,984 4,204 19,780 615 Omprakash Lahoti CBT02F3004 44,140,360 2,239,268 268,712 263,589 36,120 227,469 616 Aneesh Gupte CBT02F3102 34,207,800 1,735,140 208,217 204,247 27,720 176,527 617 Surinder Singh Chawla CBT02F3806 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ton Rustom Shroff 27,720 168,758 CBT04F3105 32,821,800 1,665,840 199,901 636 Shaista Amin Mohamed Virani 196,089 27,720 168,369 CBT02F4101 33,811,800 1,747,703 209,724 205,726 637 Zaid Farooqi 28,243 177,483 CBT04F4704 43,280,360 2,196,268 263,552 258,527 638 Gurunath Kher 36,120 222,407 CBT02F2101 31,831,800 1,616,340 193,961 190,263 639 Alifia Yusuf Munshi 27,720 162,543 CBT05F2806 43,581,300 203,614 24,434 640 Khushranglal S. Jain 23,968 4,048 19,920 CBT02FSM01 32,887,800 1,669,140 200,297 196,478 641 Rakesh Arya 27,720 168,758 CBT05F4705 57,475,600 2,916,436 349,972 343,300 642 Ranjan Kumar Rellin 47,775 295,525 CBT02FSM06 31,831,800 1,618,091 194,171 190,469 643 Dipti Probir Das 27,720 162,749 CBT05F5204 58,874,725 202,898 24,348 23,884 3,246 644 Vimla K. Jain 20,638 CBT02FSM02 32,887,800 1,669,140 200,297 645 Padma V Devarajan 196,478 27,720 168,758 CBT04F4306 33,679,800 1,173,800 140,856 138,170 19,042 646 Fakih ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 57,623,475 2,923,830 350,860 344,170 47,775 296,395 669 Prasad Devata CBT05F0404 48,978,475 203,484 24,418 23,952 3,902 20,051 670 Prashant Verma CBT05F1405 51,253,475 203,329 24,399 23,934 3,729 20,206 671 Andrew Anthony David Shantha Kumar CBT05F5205 59,898,475 202,849 24,342 23,878 3,190 20,687 672 Neera Saggi CBT05F3901 60,968,275 3,096,695 371,603 364,518 54,075 310,443 673 GRV Steels Pvt. Ltd. CBT05F1901 48,093,275 2,452,945 294,353 288,741 54,075 234,666 674 Alok Mohanlal Saraf CBT04F3202 30,727,620 1,561,131 187,336 183,764 27,720 156,044 675 Alok Mohanlal Saraf CBT04F3201 30,727,620 1,561,131 187,336 183,764 27,720 156,044 676 Piyush Jain CBT04F3006 32,362,440 203,059 24,367 23,902 3,426 20,476 677 Afshin Boman Kohinoor CBT06F2102 92,440,220 9,870,443 1,184,453 1,161,870 183,926 977,943 678 Tehmasp Nariman Printer CBT06F0501 86,575,220 203,613 24,434 23,968 4,047 19,921 679 Abha Bajaj CBT02F2503 39,968,328 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....646 235,077 37,275 197,802 702 Surath Sengupta CBT04F1103 38,565,425 1,961,552 235,386 230,898 37,275 193,623 703 Rahul Madhusudan Haksar CBT04F1104 38,565,425 1,961,552 235,386 230,898 37,275 193,623 704 Anil Jaisinghani CBT05F2805 52,732,225 229,567 27,548 27,023 3,624 23,399 705 Savita Gopi CBT05F2705 53,642,225 203,181 24,382 23,917 3,562 20,354 706 Zafir Taher Ebrahim CBT05F4102 63,157,025 203,058 24,367 23,902 3,425 20,478 707 Mohan Bindraban Agrawal CBT05F0805 48,182,225 203,541 24,425 23,959 3,966 19,993 708 Prathit D. Bhobe CBT05F1204 49,092,225 203,476 24,417 23,952 3,893 20,059 709 Sharad Agarwal CBT05F0704 49,092,225 2,497,267 299,672 293,958 47,775 246,183 710 Bhavna Pandya CBT05F0905 49,547,225 2,520,017 302,402 296,636 47,775 248,861 711 Atul Subhash Jayawant CBT05F0104 47,727,225 203,575 24,429 23,963 4,004 19,959 712 Sushilkumar B. Chouhan CBT05F0105 47,727,225 2,429,017 291,482 285,924 47,775 238....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....291,482 285,924 47,775 238,149 732 Bharti Manoj Parmar CBT05F3705 49,092,225 203,476 24,417 23,952 3,893 20,059 733 Anuradha Badhwar CBTOSF0405 47,272,225 203,609 24,433 23,967 4,043 19,925 734 Aanchal Susheel Tejuja CBT05F0604 40,902,225 2,153,741 258,449 253,521 47,775 205,746 735 Arun Kumar Gupta CBTOSF1205 42,267,225 204,037 24,484 24,018 4,521 19,496 736 Paritosh Kashyap 737 Mayur Pankaj Kamdar 738 Gaurav Gupte 739 Manisha Sujal Shah CBT05F0904 42,722,225 203,994 24,479 24,013 4,473 19,539 CBT06F0404 60,436,750 3,076,838 369,221 362,181 61,600 300,581 CBT06F0403 60,436,750 3,076,838 369,221 362,181 61,600 300,581 CBT06F1403 63,186,750 3,341,614 400,994 393,348 61,600 331,748 740 Santosh Mahadeo Dalvi CBT06F1803 65,562,750 6,999,589 839,951 823,936 129,360 694,576 741 Schauna Chauhan Saluja CBT06F0803 61,811,750 6,605,734 792,688 777,574 129,360 648,214 742 Mukesh Kumar Jain CBT02F4106 29,029,440 1,476,222 177,147 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8,109,431 9,579,187 1,149,502 1,127,585 464,373 663,212 765 Gaurav Mehta CBT03F0202 28,231,749 9,617,468 1,154,096 1,132,091 464,373 667,718 766 Omar Balsara CBT03F0402 28,474,664 9,693,130 1,163,176 1,140,998 464,373 676,625 767 Meenakshi Mattu Pandita CBT03F0806 28,601,425 9,731,424 1,167,771 1,145,505 457,569 687,936 768 Rajeshwar Raj Bajaaj CBT03F0105 28,766,053 9,866,390 1,183,967 1,161,392 457,569 703,823 769 Rajeshwar Raj Bajaaj CBT03F0106 28,766,322 9,866,530 1,183,984 1,161,409 457,569 703,840 770 Rohit Kumar Agarwal CBT03F0602 28,778,841 9,800,952 1,176,114 1,153,690 464,373 689,317 771 Manish Prakash Kothari CBT03F1006 28,853,599 9,810,131 1,177,216 1,154,770 457,569 697,201 772 Gourav Dhavale CBT03F0802 28,999,425 9,864,889 1,183,787 1,161,216 464,373 696,843 773 Merzi Mody CBT03F1206 29,121,671 9,899,758 1,187,971 1,165,320 457,569 707,751 774 Zubin Mody 775 Ashutosh Agarwala 776 Saikat Chatterjee CBT03F1205 29,124,630 9,901....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1,289,320 464,373 824,947 796 Ashwin Anand Patkar CBT03F1802 32,467,344 11,166,847 1,340,022 1,314,472 464,373 850,099 797 Mahesh Kumar Bhanwarlal Jain CBT03F2402 32,481,540 11,254,810 1,350,577 1,324,826 457,569 867,257 798 Mazhar Mohammed Hussain Sahiwala CBT03F3602 33,351,045 11,293,634 1,355,236 1,329,396 464,373 865,023 799 Rajendra Chandrakant Parab CBT03F3202 33,805,044 11,635,724 1,396,287 1,369,664 464,373 905,291 800 Udit Jatin Dalal CBT03F4402 33,847,632 11,528,408 1,383,409 1,357,032 464,373 892,659 801 Arzan Erach Singpurwalla CBT03F3502 33,907,965 12,157,012 1,458,841 1,431,026 457,569 973,457 802 Ashutosh Balkrishna Khare CBT03F4102 34,343,769 17,476,377 2,097,165 2,057,179 556,041 1,501,139 803 Garima Srivastav 804 Mudalageeri Sudhendranath 805 Annapurna Shankarnarayanan 806 Parag Prabhakar Raut 807 Sachin Gokhale CBT03F1804 39,492,985 15,748,982 1,889,878 1,853,844 608,958 1,244,886 CBT03F0601 36,246,499 12,277,369 1,473,284 1,445,194 600....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 600,453 1,052,027 826 Atit Dharia CBT03F2801 41,433,163 14,094,922 1,691,391 1,659,141 600,453 1,058,688 827 Ramesh Ganesan 828 Premji S Lalan CBT03F2804 41,608,711 14,254,114 1,710,494 1,677,880 608,958 1,068,922 CBT03F3203 41,731,147 14,182,353 1,701,882 1,669,433 608,958 1,060,475 0 S.No. Name of Customer Unit No Agreement Value (Excluding Taxes) 9 Demands raised and advances received Post GST i.e. 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019 Benefit of ITC claimed to have Profiteering Amount to been passed on as GST @ 12% on BSP be passed on per the DGAP's Report, if any Further Benefit to be passed on (Excluding Taxes) (incl. GST) 829 Riken Dilip Sanghvi CBT03F3303 41,757,210 14,162,027 1,699,443 1,667,040 608,958 1,058,082 830 Malini Venkataraman CBT03F3201 41,785,316 14,198,864 1,703,864 1,671,377 600,453 1,070,924 831 Nalini Harshad Goradia CBT03F3604 41,848,589 14,192,032 1,703,044 1,670,572 608,958 1,061,614 832 Ratnadeep Acharyya CBT03F2503 41,955,273 14,368,040 1,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5,442 307,657,916 48,362.00 о 74,146,659 1,219,102 0 12,335,442 233,511,257 M/s. Omkar Realtors & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Project: L&T Crescent Bay) ANNEXURE-B S.No. Name of Customer Unit No Saleable Area (Sq. Ft.) Total Agreement Value (Excluding Taxes (in Rs.) Demand raised and Advances received Post GST (i.e. During 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019) (Excluding Taxes) GST @ 12% on BSP Actual Amount Billed/Paid Further Benefit to be passed on (in Rs.) A B C D E F G H=F+G I=H*10.51% 1 Nirmala Motilal Jain 1005 1400 7,836,000 3,340,320 400,838 3,741,158 393,196 31 Foram Rushabh Shah. 905 1400 13,975,700 4,387,710 526,525 4,914,235 516,486 32 Avni Rikhav Shah. 906 1400 13,975,700 4,387,710 526,525 4,914,235 516,486 33 Yatin Purshottam Dawada 1001 1400 7,836,000 1,140,750 136,890 1,277,640 134,280 34 Suresh Bhimraj Parmar 1101 1400 7,920,000 3,365,520 403,862 3,769,382 396,162 35 Ajay Kumar Singh 1105 1400 7,920,000 3,365,5....