TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1479
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to 31-12-2019. According to the DGAP, the ITC as a percentage of the turnover that was available to the Respondent during the pre-GST period (April. 2016 to June, 2017) was 2.75 % and the figure for the post-GST period (July, 2017 to December, 2019) was 10.12% for the Project "Prateek Edifice". As per the said Report of the DGAP, in post-GST period, the Respondent had benefited from additional ITC to the tune of 7.37% [10.12% (-) 2.75%] of the turnover amounting to profiteering of Rs. 11.99,09,042/-which included 12% GST on the base amount of Rs. 10,70,61,545/- during the period 1-7-2017 to 31-12-2019. This amount was inclusive of profiteered amount of Rs. 57,900/- (including GST) in respect of the Applicant No. I and profiteered amount of Rs. 1,75,220/- (including GST) in respect of the Applicant No. 2. 2. The hearing in the matter through Videoconferencing was held on 27-4-2022. It was attended by Shri Rajeev Goyal, Applicant No. 1 in person and Shri Rajesh Jain, Chief Accounts Officer for the Respondent. The Applicant No. 1 during the hearing submitted that he had found fault with the calculation made in the DGAP's Report and verification of the reimbursement of profiteere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....016 and demand raised post-GST to the Applicant being annexed again as Annexure-5 and that of Mr. Vikas Agarwal as Annexure-6. (c) Hence, GST benefit to be paid to the Applicant and Mr, Vikas Agarwal ought to be the same However, Mr. Vikas Agarwal has been passed on GST benefit of Rs. 11,600/-, while same to Rajeev Goyal was of Rs. 16,419/-. Said amount of GST benefit passed on to the Applicant and Mr. Vikas Agarwal has been worked out on the basis of difference in amount payable at possession as per agreement and amount claimed in final demand letter at possession as annexed above as Annexures-4 & 5. (d) As per Paras 21 to 23 & 25 of DGAP's report along with Annexure-17 to the said report, though DGAP has concluded that Applicant No 1 has been shortly paid Rs. 41,481/- towards GST benefit, but there is no mention about short-payment of GST benefit to Vikas Agarwal. (e) There are similar other instances. These are the homebuyers, about whom it has been wrongly claimed in paragraphs 22 to 23 of the DGAP's report that they have been paid the GST benefits in excess. In fact, they have been paid much less than to their entitlement. Details of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 1 made in his Affidavit dated 18-5-2022, a Notice dated 17-6-2022, was issued to the Respondent under rule 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 to show cause as to why the above mentioned documents should not be supplied to the Applicant No. I. The Respondent vide his email dated 23-6-2022, submitted that:- a. The impugned notice was time barred: On perusal of the provisions of rule 130 of the CGST Rules, it was evident that while disclosing any information provided on a confidential basis, the provisions of section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act") should be applicable mutatis mutandis. On careful perusal of the provisions of section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, it was evident that the public officer could not disclose the subject information unless the procedure prescribed in section 11 of the RTI Act was completed. Accordingly, the concerned public officer was bound to issue a written Notice to the third party within 5 days of receipt of the request for disclosure of any information or record or part thereof. b. The subject information included commercial confidence, trade secrets etc. and accordingly, the same ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Sh. Vikas Agarwal ought to have been the same. However, as per the DGAP's Report Sh. Vikas Agarwal had been passed on GST benefit of Rs. 11,600/-, while the Applicant No. 1 was paid Rs. 16,419/-. Said amount of GST benefit passed on to the Applicant No. 1 and Sh. Vikas Agarwal has been worked out on the basis of difference in amount payable at possession as per agreement. Therefore, in view of the above, the Applicant No. 1 requested for Annexures 5 to 14, 17. 18 & 19 to the DGAP's report stating that the Respondent has supplied wrong information during the investigation to the DGAP which has adversely affected the DGAP's calculations and the Applicants' claim of benefit of ITC. 6. The Authority has carefully considered the Report furnished by the DGAP, the submissions made by the Respondent and the other material placed on record. On examining the various submissions, the observations of this Authority are as follows:- a. The Applicant No. 1 in his sworn affidavit made a statement that the Applicant No. 1 and his cousin Sh. Vikas Agarwal simultaneously booked Flat Nos. C-1105 & 1106 respectively on the same date and on identical terms and conditions an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue scrutiny and consideration. Therefore, without going into the merits and the other submissions made by the Respondent and the Applicant Nos. 1 & 2 at this stage, the Authority finds that this case needs to be reinvestigated by the DGAP based on the above observations of this Authority. Thus the Authority directs the DGAP to reinvestigate the matter as per the provisions of rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules 2017. 8. The DGAP shall and must determine the authenticity and correctness of the data/information and records upon which its Report is based and after determining the authenticity of such information/data & records reinvestigate and redetermine the profiteered amount, if any, for the Project and for each eligible recipient of supply in the said Project based upon such authentic and correct data, information and records. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its Order dated 23-3-2020, in Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020 Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re [2020] 117 taxmann.com 66, while taking suo motu cognizance of the situation arising on account of Covid-19 pandemic, has extended the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or any other spe....