TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1013
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent') in respect of purchase of flat No. J-503 by him in their project "AMAATRA HOMES". 2. The Applicant booked a flat on 01.02.2016 and the allotment was made on 16.08.2016. The Applicant has alleged that the Respondent was not ready to pass on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (For short 'the ITC') by reducing the instalment amount. 3. The matter was examined by the Uttar Pradesh State Screening Committee on profiteering. It referred the matter under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017, to the Director General Anti-profiteering (for short "the DGAP") to collect the evidence and examine it thoroughly. 4. The DGAP investigated the project "AMAATRA HOMES" executed by the Respondent and submitted its report under Rule 129(6) of the CGST Rules, 2017 on 27.10.2021 before the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (For short "the NAA"), the erstwhile Authority. The NAA passed Final order No. 64/2022 dated 31.08.2022 and held that the Respondent was indulged in profiteering and has contravened the provision under section 171 of Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (for short "the CGST Act, 2017) 5. In the meanwhile, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi pronounced Judgment in Reckitt B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the respective home-buyers. (v) Owing the pre-GST period, the Respondent was eligible to avail CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the input services. However, CENVAT credit of Central Excise Duty paid on the inputs was not admissible as per the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Respondent has also claimed VAT for the Pre-GST period from April, 2014 to June, 2017. 9. The DGAP computed the ratio of credit availed to purchase value "in percentage" as under: - (Amount in Rs.) Sr.No. Particulars Pre-GST Period Post-GST Period 1 Purchase Value of Goods and Services (Excluding Taxes and Duties) 82,33,94,051 99,18,58,928 2 Credit of Central Excise Duty and Service Tax availed 7,15,01,652 - 3 Credit of VAT availed 2,46,35,772 - 4 Total Credit Availed in Pre-GST Period 9,61,37,424 - 5 ICT of GST Availed 14,44,00,864 6 Ratio of Credit Availed to Purchase Value (in %) 11.68 14.56 10. The Central Government, on the recommendations of the GST Council, had levied 18% GST (effective Rate was 12% in view of the 1/3rd abatement for land value) on construction service, vide notific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11,881 0 0 0 Unsold Unites Total 946 10,35,082.50 1,92,68,145 5,86,75,948 14,79,116.86 13. On the basis of the above calculation, the DGAP concluded that although the Respondent had already passed on the benefit of ITC of Rs. 5,89,32,169/- to respective home-buyers however, excess benefit cannot be off-set against the benefit of ITC required to be passed on to the home-buyers, who did not receive the commensurate benefit since each home-buyer is entitled for commensurate benefit. The benefit of ITC required to be passed on by the Respondent to the eligible home-buyer computed to Rs. 14,79,117/-. 14. The Principal Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), constituted under sub-section (3) of section 109 of CGST Act, 2017, has been empowered to examine and to adjudicate Anti-Profiteering cases w.e.f. 01.10.2024, vide Notification No. 18/2024-Central Tax dated 30.09.2024. 15. Notice was issued to the Applicant and the Respondent calling upon their objections/ written submissions against the DGAP report dated 09.01.2025. 16. The Respondent submitted written submission against the DGAP report which are summarized as under; -. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent accordingly cancelled his allotment. Shri Vijay Pal Singh, Applicant feeling aggrieved with the cancellation of his flat by the Respondent, filed a complaint before UP, RERA. The said Authority decided the matter against the Applicant conclusively upholding the cancellation. 20. Shri Vijal Pal Singh, Applicant, filed his rejoinder against the reply submitted by the Respondent to the effect that: - (i) The contention of the Respondent that the Applicant is not a buyer in the project, which is incorrect. In fact, the Respondent threatened the Applicant to cancel his allotment, if he does not withdraw his complaint and they will charge GST at the rate of 5% instead of 12%. (ii) The Respondent retained Rs. 40,64,072/-, 90% of total sales consideration for a long period of 10 years. (iii) The Respondent cancelled the allotment on 26.11.2023 before receiving the OC/CC on 06.01.2023. Therefore, the cancellation is illegal. The Respondent created 3rd party in the property, which is against the spirit of the Provision under Section 152 of the Transfer of Property Act. (iv) The Respondent has charged 12% GST from all the buyers instead of 5% in pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntions these two so-called applicants have no locus-standie to contest with the matter. 6. On the other hand, Shri Vijay Pal Singh and Ms. Abhipriya, Learned Advocate prayed that they may be given some time to brought their objections on record. 7. In view of the above, Shri Vijay Pal Singh and Learned Counsel Ms. Abhipriya are directed to file their objections within two weeks from today. Copies of the objections be provided to Learned Counsel for the Respondent as well the DGAP." (iii) 11.02.2026 1...... 2..... 3. Shri Vijay Pal Singh, Applicant appeared in person along with his Learned Counsel Shri Mukesh Sachdeva. 4. Shri Sandeep Chilana, Advocate assisted by Shri Karan Vyas, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 5. On earlier occasion, Shri Vijay Pal Singh, Applicant and Mrs. Anshul Tyagi, one of the home-buyers in the project with the Respondent had appeared in person/through their Counsel. 6. Today, none appeared on behalf of the Mrs. Anshul Tyagi. However, the Learned Counsel had sought time to file their objection but no objection is filed so far. 7. Shri Vijay Pal Singh, App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of 10 years. 9. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that Shri Vijay Pal Singh, Applicant has approached the RERA authority, Lucknow against the order passed by the RERA Authority, Noida. 10. in view of the above, we are of the view that in so far as the payment of interest after cancellation of flat of Shri Vijay Pal Singh, Applicant is concerned, this issue does not fall under purview of the Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Applicant may approach the proper forum to address his grievance." 23. The perusal of the aforesaid orders passed during the course of hearing indicates that the allotment made to Shri Vijay Pal Singh, was cancelled by the Respondent on account of committing default by him. The Applicant approached RERA Authority, Noida against the cancellation made by the Respondent. This fact is not disputed by the Applicant that the RERA Authority, Noida has dismissed his application against which he has approached the RERA Appellate Authority, Lucknow. 24. The sole argument of the Applicant before us that the Respondent retained his money for a longer period of more than 10 years. Therefore, he is entitled to Interest on his depo....