2023 (7) TMI 1288 - CCI - GST

Profiteering - existence (or not) of projects other than the project Tinsel Town being constructed by the Respondent under single GST Registration - liability to pass on the benefit of ITC in respect all the other Projects/Blocks to the buyers, or not - HELD THAT - The Respondent is executing a single project namely Tinsel Town under GSTIN 27AAHFN999N1Z3. The above project is being executed by the Respondent in two Phases i.e. Phase I Phase II. The Phase I II of the above project has been registered with Maharashtra RERA under Registration No. P52100000392 P52100017178. The NAA vide its Order in SHRI SHUBHAM SAXENA, SH SHYAM AGGARWAL S-201, SH. PRAKHAR VARSHNEY, A201, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF ANTI-PROFITEERING NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S NEW WORLD REALTY LLP 2022 (8) TMI 1413 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY has already determined profiteered amount of Rs. 1,45,28,245/- in respect of the above two phases of the project Tinsel Town . It is also observed by the Commission that the Respondent is not executing any other project other than the project Tinsel Town under the same GSTIN 27AAHFN999N1Z3 and the same has been verified by the DGAP by visiting the website of Maharashtra RERA. From the website of Maharashtra RERA, it has been observed that the Respondent has obtained Tower-wise registration of two phases of the project Tinsel Town and no other project than the above project is being executed by him under the above GSTIN. The instant case does not fall under the ambit of Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as the Respondent is not executing any project other than the project Tinsel Town which has already been investigated and profiteered amount has also been determined by the NAA vide its Order in Shri Shubham Saxena. Accordingly, the proceedings initiated against the Respondent under Rule 133 (5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 are hereby dropped.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the determination of whether the respondent was liable to pass on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to buyers in relation to projects other than "Tinsel Town" under the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Summary:
The Competition Commission of India received a report from the Director General of Anti-Profiteering regarding the investigation under Rule 133(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The report stated that the respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC to recipients during a specific period. However, upon further investigation, it was found that the respondent was only executing the project "Tinsel Town" and had not undertaken any other construction projects. This led to the conclusion that the respondent was not required to pass on the benefit of ITC as per Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.

The Commission examined the report and confirmed that the respondent was solely working on the "Tinsel Town" project, which had already been investigated for profiteering. It was verified that no other projects were being executed by the respondent under the same GSTIN. The Commission also noted that the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax confirmed that the respondent had not undertaken any other projects apart from "Tinsel Town."

Based on these findings, it was determined that the case did not fall under the Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Since the respondent was only involved in the "Tinsel Town" project, which had already been investigated for profiteering, the proceedings against the respondent were dropped. The order was to be supplied to all parties involved, and the case file was to be closed.