9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 783 - NAPA - GSTProfiteering - purchase of flats - benefit of Input Tax Credit had not been passed on to the Applicant - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - penalty - HELD THAT - The Authority finds that, the Report of the DGAP is prepared on the basis of the Documents/data provided by the Respondent and as per the provisions enshrined under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 which the Respondent has violated by not passing on the benefit of ITC to his home/flat buyers. The findings of the DGAP has not violated any of the rights of the Respondent and the said report was submitted to this Authority, which has provided ample opportunities to the Respondent to submit his position and also offered personal hearing. As such, principle of natural justice is followed in true sense and spirit. Various judgments quoted by the Respondent have been followed by the Authority before passing this Order. Therefore, the submission of the Respondent is not acceptable. It is clear that the Respondent has profiteered by an amount of Rs. 85,77,419/- during the period of investigation i.e. 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2020. The Authority determined amount of Rs. 85,77,419/- (including 12% GST) under section 133 (1) that has been profiteered by the Respondent from his home buyers (as per the list mentioned below), including Applicant No. 1, and shall be refunded by him along with interest @18% thereon, from the date when the amount was profiteered by him till the date of such payment, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (b) of the GCST Rules 2017. This Order having been passed today falls within the limitation prescribed under Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was a benefit of reduction in the rate of tax or Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the supply of construction services post-GST implementation. 2. Whether the Respondent passed on such benefit to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in price as per Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Benefit of Reduction in Rate of Tax or ITC: The DGAP conducted an investigation covering the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2020. The investigation revealed that the Respondent benefited from additional ITC post-GST implementation. The ITC as a percentage of turnover increased from 0.22% in the pre-GST period (April 2016 to June 2017) to 2.40% in the post-GST period (July 2017 to June 2020). This indicated a benefit of 2.18% of the turnover which should have been passed on to the recipients. 2. Passing on the Benefit to Recipients: The Respondent was required to pass on the benefit of additional ITC to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices as mandated by Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The DGAP's report calculated that the Respondent profiteered an amount of Rs. 85,77,419/- by not passing on the benefit of ITC to the recipients. This amount included 12% GST on the base profiteered amount of Rs. 76,58,409/-. Respondent's Contentions: The Respondent raised several contentions against the DGAP's findings, including: - The Standing Committee erred in referring the matter to the DGAP. - The DGAP’s report went beyond the application submitted by Applicant No. 1. - The methodology of comparing the ratio of ITC to turnover for pre-GST and post-GST periods was incorrect. - The cost of construction had increased post-GST, which neutralized the ITC gain. - The DGAP's report was based on presumptive facts and figures, ignoring actual facts from written agreements. - The methodology adopted by the DGAP was arbitrary and inconsistent. Authority's Findings: The Authority addressed each of the Respondent's contentions: - The Standing Committee's role is to conduct a prima facie examination, and the DGAP conducts a detailed investigation if prima facie evidence is found. - Section 171 mandates passing on the benefit of ITC to all recipients, not just the applicant. - The comparison of ITC to turnover ratios is a valid method to determine the benefit of additional ITC. - The Respondent did not provide documentary evidence to substantiate claims of increased costs or that prices post-GST were adjusted for ITC benefits. - The DGAP's methodology and calculations were consistent with the legal requirements and previous cases. Order: The Authority ordered the Respondent to: - Reduce the prices to be realized from the buyers of flats/shops commensurate with the benefit of ITC. - Refund the profiteered amount of Rs. 85,77,419/- along with interest @18% to the home/shop buyers within three months. - Ensure compliance through the jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner and publish an advertisement informing the buyers of their entitlement. Compliance and Monitoring: The jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner and the DGAP were directed to ensure compliance and report back within four months. Conclusion: The Respondent was found to have contravened Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, by not passing on the benefit of additional ITC to the recipients. The Authority confirmed the DGAP's findings and ordered the Respondent to refund the profiteered amount with interest.
|
