Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2026 (3) TMI 1302

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....22, Subhash Nagar Roorkee, District Haridwar-247667; and (3) Sh. Rajiv Kumar Dahiya, 1150, Gayan Singh Bist Marg, Subhash Nagar, Dehradun alleging the charging of higher rate GST of 12% instead of 1% for Respondent's project "PDCL-Golf Estate". 2. The aforesaid application was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering (hereinafter referred to as "NAA") and the same was forwarded to DGAP conduct a detailed investigation in the matter. 3. The DGAP conducted an investigation for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.05.2020. 4. Accordingly, the investigation in the matter was concluded and the Investigation Report dated 25.02.2021 was submitted to the National Anti-Profiteering Authority, under Rule 129(6) of the Rules. 5. The report dated 31.12.2020 sent by the DGAP was pending for Orders with the erstwhile NAA (then Competition Commissions of India (CCI)). Meanwhile, in a Writ Petition No. 7743/2019 and other connected matters, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed its judgment vide order dated 29.01.2024 and gave its findings on the methodology adopted by the DGAP. 6. Subsequently, taking cognizance of the above said observations of the Hon'ble High Court in ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....em and purchase value of the inputs and services in respect of the Towers B, C, D, G of the Project "Golf Estate", the ratio of input tax credit to the purchase value, during the pre-GST and post-GST periods were calculated and are furnished in Table-'A' below: Table-A Amount in Rs. S.No. Particulars Data Source Total (Pre-GST) Total (post- GST) 1 CENVAT of Service Tax Paid on Input Services (A) CA Certified Annexure I Submitted by the Noticee vide letter dated 18.12.2024 7,31,17,955 NA 2 Input Tax Credit of VAT Paid on Purchase of Inputs (B) CA Certified Annexure I Submitted by the Noticee vide letter dated 18.12.2024 0 NA 3 Input Tax Credit of GST Availed as per GSTR3B returns (C) CA Certified Annexure II Submitted by the Noticee vide letter dated 18.12.2024 NA 5,06,28,263 4 Total CENVAT/ITC of VAT/ITC of GST (D = A+B+C) As calculated 7,31,17,955 5,06,28,263 5 Total Purchase value of goods and services for the project during the period (E) CA Certified Annexure I and II submitted by the Noticee vide letter dated 18.12.2024 234,38,71,562 151,68,51,94 6 Percentage/ Ratio of the inp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in terms of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the benefit of such additional input tax credit was required to be passed on to the homebuyers. As mentioned in the table 'B' above the DGAP concluded that the Respondent has profiteered an amount of Rs. 10,64,074/- plus GST @ 12% i.e. Rs. 1,27,689/-, totalling to Rs. 11,91,763/-, which needs to be passed on to the 364 eligible buyers. 16. W.e.f. 01.10.2024, the Central Government, on the recommendations of the GST Council has empowered the Principal Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), constituted under sub-section (3) of section 109 of CGST Act, 2017, to examine anti-profiteering cases in terms of Notification No. 18/2024-Central Tax dated 30.09.2024. 17. The above report was received in the Pr. Bench, GSTAT on 31.12.2024. Vide order sheet dated 28.10.2025, it was directed to issue Notice to the Respondent directing him to file his written submissions on the report of the DGAP. Accordingly, a Notice dated29.10.2025 was issued to the Respondent. 18. The Respondent vide its written submissions dated 07.01.2026 filed his written submissions stated that in good faith and without prejudice to an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....GAP. However, in this regard the Departmental Representative of the DGAP submitted that this calculation was taken in a previous report prior to the judgment dated 29.01.2024 in W.P. (Civil) No. 774/2019 Reckitt Benckiser &Ors. in NAA connected matters. However, as per Para 129 of the said order, the DGAP has calculated the profiteered amount as Rs. 1186.09/- in respect of Complainant also sent an email dated 09.01.2026 wherein she submitted that the Tribunal shall direct the Respondent for payment of profiteered amount along with applicable interest from the date of profiteering till the date of actual payment. 22. In light of the DGAP report and submissions of the parties, the following issues arise for determination: i. Whether the Respondent derived the benefit of additional input tax credit after the introduction of GST? ii. Whether such benefit was passed on to the homebuyers in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act? iii. Whether the Respondent is liable to refund the profiteered amount along with interest? iv. Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act is attracted? 23. With regard to the issue number i and ii of above para....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited Vs. Union of India pertains to methodology of computation and does not dilute the statutory mandate under Rule 133(3)(b). 27. The judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, WP (C) 7743/2019, wherein the Hon'ble Court has dealt with the said aspect in Para No. 153 of the judgment. The relevant extract is reproduced below for the sake of brevity. "153. This court is of the view that Section 171 of the Act, 2017 is broad enough to empower the Central Government to prescribe penalty and interest to ensure that the suppliers are deterred from pocketing the benefits meant for the consumers when taxes amount so pocketed by the supplier /registered person would no have a sufficient deterrent effect on deviant behaviour unless interest and penalty are levied to prevent such actions from taking place in the first place. The width and amplitude of Section 171 by which the authority is empowered to ensure that a reduction in tax rate or the Input Tax Credit availed results in a commensurate reduction in the price of goods or services clearly encompasses within it the power....