2023 (8) TMI 44 - CCI - GST

Profiteering - project Migsun Wynn - benefit of ITC in respect all the other Projects to the buyers, passed on or not - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - HELD THAT - This Commission has carefully considered the DGAP's Report dated 30.08.2022 and the documents/information placed on record and it has been revealed that the Respondent is executing a single project namely Migsun Wynn under GSTIN 09AALCS8695P1ZZ and this has also been verified by the DGAP from the website of Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) - Further, the Respondent is also executing one more project Migsun Janpath registered in UPRERA under RERA Registration No. UPRERAPRJ986676 which belongs to other GSTIN 09AALCS8695P2ZY. The above project was approved by Lucknow Development Authority vide Sanction Letter No. MAP20190715201831787 dated 11-12-2019 after introduction of GST. 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 Migsun Wynn which has already been investigated and profiteered amount determined by the NAA 2022 (8) TMI 271 - THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY . The present proceedings being conducted against the Respondent are dropped.

Summary

Issues involved: Determination of profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 for projects under the same GST Registration No.

Summary:

Issue 1: Investigation and direction for further investigation

The National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) confirmed profiteering in a project and directed the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) to investigate all other projects under the same GST Registration No. The DGAP conducted an investigation covering the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2022.

Issue 2: Response and verification by the Respondent

The Respondent replied to the notice stating that only one project, "Migsun Wynn," had been investigated and profiteering determined. The Respondent claimed not to have any other projects falling under the same GSTIN. The DGAP verified this claim and found another project, "Migsun Janpath," registered under a different GSTIN.

Issue 3: Conclusion by the DGAP and the Commission

The DGAP concluded that Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 was not applicable as the Respondent was executing only one project. The Competition Commission of India considered the DGAP's report and verified that the Respondent was executing a single project, "Migsun Wynn," and another project, "Migsun Janpath," under different GSTINs.

Final Decision:

The Commission found that the case did not fall under the Anti-Profiteering provisions as the Respondent was not executing any project other than "Migsun Wynn," which had already been investigated and profiteering determined. Consequently, the proceedings against the Respondent were dropped, and the order was to be supplied to all parties involved.