9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The project was launched only after the implementation of GST. As there was no comparative pre-GST ITC that was accumulated or utilized by the Respondent the question of profiteering does not arise. The main allegation of the above Applicant was that GST @12% was charged instead of 8%. However as noticed from the demand letter dated 16.04.2018 which the above Applicant had quoted the total value was shown as ₹ 3,21,124/- and the taxable value was shown as ₹ 2, 14,083/- (2/3rd of the total value of ₹ 3,21,124/, separately for calculating the tax liability and the Respondent had charged GST @ 12% on the taxable value which was 2/3rd of the total value. Therefore, the effective rate of GST was 8% on the total value of ₹ 3,21,124/-, which clearly shows that the Respondent had reduced the GST rate from 12% to 8% w.e.f 25.01.2018, in terms of Notification No. 01/2018 Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018. It is also observed that based on the above clarification the Applicant No. 1 has admitted her mistake and withdrawn her complaint. Thus, it is clearly established that the Respondent had not contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yana. Under the above Scheme, the flats were allotted to the successful allottees by way of draw of lots, which took place in the presence of the Government officials. The draw for the selection of the allottees in respect of this project had taken place on 17.10.2017, i.e., after the implementation of the GST on 01.07.2017 and the agreement for sale of the flat between the Applicant and the Respondent was executed on 17.11.2017. 4. The Respondent had further submitted that the service rendered by him by way of construction and development of the project Habitat-78 was not in existence during the pre-GST regime and that the project was launched after the implementation of GST. There was no sale or booking of the flats of the above project in the pre-GST regime and hence, the question of price revision did not arise. He further stated that the anti-profiteering provisions would apply only to services which were being supplied before the introduction of GST, to ensure that the benefit of additional ITC (which earlier formed part of the cost but now available as credit) or the benefit of reduction in tax rate, was not retained by the supplier but passed on to the recipients ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GST rate for affordable housing post 25.01.2018 was also incorrect as the Respondent had charged GST @ 8% post 25.01.2018 and in support of his claim submitted all the demand letters issued in the name of the above Applicant out of which the demand letter dated 16.04.2018 showed that he had charged GST @ 8%. The Respondent had also submitted that the misunderstanding was because of the fact that he had charged GST @ 12% on the taxable value (2/3rd of the total value) which was effectively 8% of the total demand raised which was evident from the letter dated 16.04.2018 where he had shown the total value as ₹ 3,21,124/- and the taxable value as ₹ 2,14,083/- (2/3rd of the total value of ₹ 3,21,124/-), separately for calculating the tax liability and charged GST @ 12% on the taxable value which was 2/3rd of the total value shown in the above letter. 8. The Respondent had further stated that the Applicant was convinced that the GST was correctly charged but she had surrendered the above unit and withdrawn her complaint vide her letter dated 18.01.2019. The Respondent had also requested that as the application which was the basis of the present proceedings had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear the above Applicant on 26.03.2019 but the Applicant did not appear on the stipulated date and informed over phone that as she had already withdrawn her application and also surrendered her flat in the said project therefore she may be exempted from hearing. Later on the Respondent was heard on 07.05.2019 where he was represented by Sh. Ajay Gupta, Authorised Representative and the DGAP was represented by Sh. Amit Srivastava Superintendent. The Respondent during the hearing submitted that the project 'Habitat-78' was launched after implementation of GST and hence anti-profiteering provisions did not apply on the said project. The Respondent further vide letter dated 15.05.2019 stated that he had one commercial project situated in Sector 109 Gurugram which was expected to be completed by March 2020. The letter also stated that the Respondent was not interested in any further personal hearings in terms of Rule 133 (2) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and his submissions made on 07.05.2019 should be taken on record. 12. We have carefully examined the DGAP's report and the written submissions filed by the Applicant No. 1 and the Respondent placed on record. The issues to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin 15 days from the date of allotment 01.11.2017 25% of the total cost of the flat less application amount 514247 3 Within 6 months of allotment 01.05 2018 12.5% of the total cost of the flat 321124 4 Within 12 months of allotment 01.11.2018 12.5% of the total cost of the flat 321124 5 Within 18 months of allotment 01.05.2019 12.5% of the total cost of the flat 321124 6 Within 24 months of allotment 01.11.2019 12.5% of the total cost of the flat 321124 7 Within 30 months of allotment 01.05.2020 12.5% of the total cost of the flat 321124 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
