9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 1219 - CCI - GSTProfiteering - benefit of ITC not passed on to the recipients - HELD THAT - The Commission has carefully considered the Report of the DGAP and the other material placed on record and finds that the DGAP, in pursuance to the Order in SH. DEEPAK GARG, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ANTI-PROFITEERING, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S. JKG CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 2022 (10) TMI 408 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY , has investigated the matter pertaining to the other projects executed by the Respondent in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the Rules made there under so as to determine whether there has been any profiteering by the Respondent and found that no other project has been executed by the Respondent except the project JKG Palm Court , profiteering in respect of which has already been determined by the NAA. The Commission finds that the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted in the case of the other projects of the Respondent and therefore the proceedings are accordingly dropped against the Respondent.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are whether the Respondent had profiteered in projects other than 'JKG Palm Court' and whether the benefit of input tax credit was passed on to the recipients as required under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Summary: 1. The Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) submitted a report after investigating the case of M/s JKG Construction Pvt. Ltd. regarding profiteering in projects other than 'JKG Palm Court'. 2. Initially, the DGAP reported that the Respondent had profiteered in the 'JKG Palm Court' project, which was confirmed by the National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA). 3. The NAA directed the DGAP to investigate profiteering in other projects executed by the Respondent under the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. 4. The DGAP's subsequent report stated that the Respondent claimed to have executed only the 'JKG Palm Court' project, which was verified through online checks with the UP Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). 5. The DGAP also confirmed with the State Tax authorities that the Respondent was not executing any other projects besides 'JKG Palm Court'. 6. Based on the investigations, the DGAP concluded that the Respondent had not undertaken any other projects apart from 'JKG Palm Court', where profiteering had already been determined. 7. The Competition Commission found that the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 did not apply to the other projects of the Respondent, and therefore, the proceedings against the Respondent were dropped. 8. The Commission ordered that a copy of the decision be sent to the Respondent and the DGAP, and the case file be closed. Separate Judgement: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
