9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1353 - CCI - GSTProfiteering - Respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC by way of commensurate reduction in the price - violation of provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The Commission observes that no benefit of additional ITC during the GST period as compared to the pre-GST period has accrued in the case of this Project to the Respondent, which he is obliged to pass on to his buyers. Hence, the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted in this case and there is no requirement of any commensurate reduction in the prices of the units in the said project by the Respondent. Applicant No. 1 could have availed the above benefit only if the above project was under execution/implementation before the date of GST implementation viz., 01.7.2017. Hence, the allegations made by the Applicant No. 1 are incorrect and therefore, the same cannot be accepted. The Commission finds that the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted in the Respondent s project Godrej Elements . Therefore, the proceedings in the present case are hereby dropped.
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are: 1. Allegation of not passing on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. Determination of whether there was a violation of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Issue I: Allegation of not passing on the benefit of ITC: The report received from the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) outlined the allegation that the Respondent did not pass on the benefit of ITC to the Applicant in the project "Godrej Elements." The investigation period covered was from 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2021. The Respondent contended that since the project was launched post-GST regime, the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act did not apply. The DGAP verified documents and found that all units were booked post-GST, and no units were sold in the pre-GST era for comparison. The Respondent's submissions and documents supported the argument that there was no profiteering as the project was developed after the GST implementation. Issue II: Violation of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017: The Competition Commission of India considered whether there was any violation of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 by the Respondent in the project "Godrej Elements." Despite multiple opportunities, the Applicant did not submit any responses or attend hearings. The Commission reviewed the project timeline, including RERA registration, booking, and construction activities, and concluded that all relevant events occurred post-GST implementation. As there was no additional ITC benefit during the GST period compared to the pre-GST period, the Respondent was not obligated to pass on any benefit to buyers. Therefore, the Commission found that Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 was not applicable in this case, and the proceedings were dropped. Separate Judgment by Judges: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
