2023 (8) TMI 299 - CCI - GST

Profiteering - projects other than project Crescent Bay - benefit of ITC not passed on - contravention of provision of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - This Commission has carefully considered the Report of the DGAP and the other material placed on record and finds that the DGAP, in SHRI BHARAT KASHYAP AND DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ANTI-PROFITEERING, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES CUSTOMES VERSUS M/S L T PAREL PROJECT LLP AND M/S OMKAR REALTORS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD 2022 (7) TMI 1441 - 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 Crescent Bay , profiteering in respect of which has already been determined by the NAA vide its order dated 29.07.2022. The above fact has also been corroborated from the website of the Maharashtra RERA as well as the reply of the Commissioner State Tax Maharashtra as per the report of the DGAP. This 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 him.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves investigation into profiteering by a respondent in projects other than 'Crescent Bay', as directed by the National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) under Rule 133 (5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules (CGST), 2017.

Investigation Details:
1. The Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) conducted an investigation based on the NAA's directions and reported profiteering by the respondent in the 'Crescent Bay' Project.
2. The respondent and M/s Omkar Realtors & Developers Pvt. Ltd. entered into a Joint Revenue Sharing agreement, where the respondent claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) to pass on benefits to home buyers.
3. NAA directed the DGAP to investigate profiteering in projects other than 'Crescent Bay', suspecting similar contraventions under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Investigation Report:
1. The DGAP issued a notice to the respondent under Rule 129 of the CGST Rules, 2017, covering the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.07.2022.
2. Respondent claimed to have executed only the 'Crescent Bay' Project, which was verified through Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) registration.
3. DGAP confirmed that no other projects were undertaken by the respondent, as corroborated by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Govt. of Maharashtra.
4. The Commission found that Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 did not apply to other projects of the respondent, as profiteering was only established in the 'Crescent Bay' Project.

Conclusion:
The Commission concluded that no profiteering occurred in projects other than 'Crescent Bay', as investigated by the DGAP and determined by the NAA. Therefore, proceedings against the respondent were dropped, and the order was to be shared with the concerned parties.