2019 (7) TMI 1283 - HC - GST

Profiteering - passing on the benefit of the profited amount to the land owner who will in turn pass on such benefit along with interest to the buyers - part project completed and few units sold - case of petitioner is that in any event the Petitioner s liability cannot be more than the flats actually sold - HELD THAT - The Court directs that subject to the Petitioners depositing a sum of ₹ 40 lacs in equal halves (₹ 20 lacs to the CGST fund and ₹ 20 lacs to the SGST fund) on or before 31st August 2019, there shall be a stay of the impugned order of the NAPA dated 14th June 2019. As far as the penalty proceedings are concerned, they will continue and any orders passed therein will be subject to the outcome of the present petitions.

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of profiteered amount by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (‘NAPA’).
2. Liability of petitioners to pass on the benefit of the profited amount.
3. Petitioners' argument regarding the completion of only half of the project.
4. Direction by the Court regarding depositing a sum to stay the impugned order.
5. Continuation of penalty proceedings subject to the outcome of the petitions.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the determination of the profiteered amount by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAPA) in an order dated 14th June 2019. The NAPA found that a certain amount, including specific sums to be paid to different parties, had been profiteered. This determination led to the present petition challenging the order.

2. The petitioners contended that only half of the project had been completed by a certain date, and a specific number of flats had been sold by then. They argued that their liability should be limited to the flats actually sold, given the incomplete status of the project. The Court took note of this argument while considering the case.

3. In response to the submissions and applications for interim reliefs, the Court directed the petitioners to deposit a specified amount in equal halves to the CGST fund and the SGST fund by a certain date. Upon compliance with this directive, a stay was granted on the impugned order of the NAPA, providing temporary relief to the petitioners.

4. The judgment also addressed the penalty proceedings, stating that they would continue independently. However, any orders resulting from these proceedings would be subject to the final outcome of the ongoing petitions. This approach ensured that the penalty proceedings were not affected by the temporary stay granted in relation to the profiteering determination.

5. The Court concluded the judgment by issuing an 'order dasti,' indicating the mode of providing the official copy of the judgment. Overall, the judgment carefully considered the complex issues surrounding the profiteering determination, the petitioners' arguments, and the appropriate legal remedies to balance the interests of all parties involved.