9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1086 - NAPA - GSTProfiteering - construction of project - benefit of ITC not passed on to the buyers, by way of commensurate reduction in price - violation of section 171 of CGST Act - penalty - HELD THAT - It has been observed that as per the Table A of the Report all the relevant events for the project Epic took place in GST regime and the Respondent had not availed any CENVAT/ITC, related to EPIC project, in pre-GST regime and that the Respondent neither raised any demand nor received any advance for this project in Pre-GST regime. Therefore, there was no pre-GST tax rate or ITC structure which could be compared with the post-GST tax rate and ITC structure and therefore, the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 were not applicable against the Respondent s project Epic - In view of the facts and records/documents cited and considered by the DGAP in its report dated 24.03.2021, the Authority concurs with the findings of the DGAP that the provisions of section l71 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 does not get attracted in the present case for the said project Epic and for said period 01.07.2017 to 30.11.2020. This Order having been passed today falls within the limitation prescribed under Rule 133(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) was passed on to the buyers of the "Epic" project. 2. Applicability of anti-profiteering provisions under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 to the "Epic" project. 3. Comparison of pre-GST and post-GST tax rates and ITC benefits for the "Epic" project. 4. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the limitation period for the investigation. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) was passed on to the buyers of the "Epic" project: The Authority directed the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) to investigate whether the Respondent passed on the ITC benefit to the buyers of the "Epic" project. The DGAP issued a notice to the Respondent to determine if the benefit of ITC had been passed on to the buyers by way of a commensurate reduction in price. The investigation period covered was from 01.07.2017 to 30.11.2020. 2. Applicability of anti-profiteering provisions under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 to the "Epic" project: The Respondent contended that the anti-profiteering provisions did not apply to the "Epic" project as it was launched in the post-GST period. The project received its RERA registration on 06.12.2018, and the first supply for construction was received on 18.12.2018. The DGAP confirmed that all significant events for the "Epic" project took place in the GST regime, and the Respondent had not availed any CENVAT/ITC related to the project in the pre-GST regime. 3. Comparison of pre-GST and post-GST tax rates and ITC benefits for the "Epic" project: The DGAP found that there was no pre-GST tax rate or ITC structure to compare with the post-GST tax rate and ITC for the "Epic" project. The project was launched after the implementation of GST, and the Respondent neither raised any demand nor received any advance for the project in the pre-GST period. Therefore, there was no basis for comparison to determine if any benefit was required to be passed on by way of reduced price. 4. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the limitation period for the investigation: The Hon'ble Supreme Court extended the period of limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 was excluded for the purposes of limitation for all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. This extension was applicable to the present case, ensuring that the order fell within the prescribed limitation period under Rule 133(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Conclusion: The Authority concurred with the DGAP's findings that the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 did not apply to the "Epic" project. The Respondent had not availed any CENVAT/ITC in the pre-GST regime, and all relevant events for the project took place in the GST regime. Therefore, there was no profiteering by the Respondent, and the investigation was concluded without any further action.
|
