9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1082X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purchase of flats in the Respondents project "Green Court" situated in Sector 90, Gurugram, Haryana. Sh. Shaurabh Prabhakar has filed the above application on behalf of the Applicant No. 1. The above Applicants had alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit Of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to them by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the flats, These complaints were examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering in its meetings held on 07.08.2018 & 08.08.201B and were forwarded to the DGAP for detailed investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Further, 05 more applications were forwarded to the DGAP by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering vide minutes of its meetings dated 06.09.2019, 04.10.2019 and 25-10.2018, As the investigation was already underway, these Applicants were made co-Applicants in the ongoing investigation. Therefore, the Report covers a total number of 12 applications filed against the Respondent. 2. The DGAP on receipt of the above minutes from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering had called upon th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent has also submitted the following documents along with his replies:- (a) Copies of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B Returns for the period from July, 2017 to August, 2018. (b) Copies of Tran-1 and Tran-2 Returns for the period July, 2017 to December, 2017. (c) Copy of Electronic Credit Ledger for the period from July, 2017 to August, 2018. (d) Copies of VAT Returns and ST-3 Returns for the period from April, 2016 to June 2017. (e) Coves of all Demand letters issued in the names of the Applicants. (f) Copies of CENVAT/lnput Tax Credit Register for the FY 2016-17, 2017-18 and from April, 2018 to August, 2018. (g) Details Of applicable tax rates, Pre-GST & Post-GST. (h) Copies of Balance Sheets for the FY 2016-17 & 2017-18. (i) Copy of Certificate regarding expenses and sources of funds. issued by M/s. Design Axis Architects and details of numbers of flats. (j) Details of VAT, Service Tax, ITC of VAT, CENVAT Credit for the period from April, 2016 to June, 2017 and output GST and ITC of GST for the period from July, 2017 to August 2016 for the project "Green Court". (k) Reconciliation of turnover reported in GSTR-3B Returns with that in the list of home buyers. (l) Detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the ITC available to the Respondent and the amount received by him from the Applicants and Other recipients post implementation of GST, has to be taken into account to determine whether the benefit of ITC has been passed on by the Respondent to the recipients. 6. The DGAP has also submitted that the other aspect to be borne in mind while determining profiteering was that para 5 of Schedule-III of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Activities or Transactions which shall be treated neither as a supply of goods nor a supply of services) read as "Sale of land and, subject to clause (b) of paragraph 5 of Schedule sale of building". Further clause (b) of Paragraph 5 of Schedule II of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read as "(b) construction of a complex, building, civil structure or a part thereof, including a complex or building intended for sale to a buyer, wholly or partly, except where the entire consideration has been received after issuance of completion certificate, where required, by the competent authority or after its first occupation, whichever is earlier". Thus, the ITC pertaining to the units which were under construction but had not been sold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his VAT liability would be known only when VAT assessment for the relevant period would be done and he would accordingly charge VAT from his customers and discharge his VAT liability. In support of his claim, the Respondent has submitted a copy of the agreement executed with the Applicant No. 5, wherein it has been mentioned that the applicable municipal tax, property tax, Service Tax, VAT, GST and/or any other tax or charges as per law, would be collected from the above Applicant retrospectively or prospectively, The DGAP has further submitted that as the Respondent had not mentioned any turnover in his VAT Returns or ST-3 Returns on account of exemption, the gross receipts from the homebuyers as per the homebuyers list, had been considered as the turnover for determining the ratio of VAT credit available to the Respondent and the turnover in the pre-GST Period. He has also claimed that post-GST, the Respondent was eligible to avail ITC of GST paid on inputs and input services including on the sub-contracts, From the data submitted by the Respondent, duly verified from his returns filed during the pre-GST period from April, 2016 to June. 2017 and the post-GST period from July, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when only VAT was payable with (1) the post-GST period from July, 2017 to 24.01.2018 when the effective GST rate was 12% and (2) with the GST period from 25.01.2018 to 31.08.2018 when the effective GST rate was 8%, Accordingly, on the basis of Table-B above, the comparative figures of tax rate, ratio of ITC to the Respondent's turnover in the pre-GST and post-GST periods, the recalibrated basic price on account of benefit Of ITC credit and the excess collection by the Respondent i.e. profiteering during the post-GST period, has been tabulated by the DCAP in the Table-'C' below:- Table-'C' (Amount in Rs.) S.No. Particulars Pre-GST Post-GST April, 2016 to June, 2017 July, 2017 to January 24th 2018 January 25th 2018 to August, 2018 Total July, 2017 to August, 2018 1. Period A 2. VAT/Service Tax/GST rate (%) B - 12 8 3. Ratio of CENVAT/VAT/Input Tax Credit to Turnover as per Table - 'B' above (%) C 0.49 7.73 7.73 7.73 4. Increase in ratio of input tax credit availed post-GST (%) D - 7.24 7.24 7.24 5. Analysis of Increase in input tax credit: 6. Basic Price collec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the post-GST period, but the bookings of 98 flats have been cancelled. He has further submitted that the demands raised on all the 1384 home buyers (1482-98=1384) during the pre-GST period well as in the post-GST period under investigation w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31 .08.201B had been reconciled with the home buyers list. Therefore, he has claimed that the computation of profiteering has been done with respect to those flats only where demands have been raised or payments have been received in the post-GST period. He has further claimed that if the ITC in respect of the unsold flats or the flats on which no consideration has been received in the post-GST period. was taken into account to calculate the profiteering in respect of the flats where payments have been received in the post-GST period, the ITC as a percentage of turnover would be distorted and erroneous. Therefore, the profiteering in respect of the remaining 274 flats should be calculated when the consideration is received in the post-GST period, by taking into account the proportionate ITC in respect of such units. 11. The DGAP has claimed that the benefit of additional ITC to the extent of 7.24% of the turnover, has accr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the DGAP while Sh. Narendra Kumar, CA, Authorised Representative appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Further hearings were held on 26.04.2019, 18.06.2019. The Respondent has filed written submissions dated 12.04.2019, 26.04.2019, 18.06.2019, 30.08.2019 and 13.11.2019 which are summed up as follows:- I. That the DGAP has not considered provision of section 171 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (i.e. CCST Act, 2017) properly in his investigation dated 28.02.2019. II. That initially CENVAT Credit under the Service Tax law and the ITC on VAT under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was allowed to him. The Service Tax was exempted later on through amended Notification No. 09/2016-Service Tax dated 01.03.2016 in case of the residential complexes under Affordable Housing Scheme so there was no benefit of CENVAT Credit because the down line contractors / sub-contractors were exempted and he was also not charging Service Tax in the demands raised to his customers but VAT input credit was allowed under the Haryana VAT Act because he had opted for regular scheme to discharge VAT liabilities on transfer of goods during the execution of the construction activities. As pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve calculation of the Excise Duty amount of Rs. 3,04,63,210/- and he was ready to pay Rs. 1,52,31,605/- as a GST benefit to his customers. V. That the documents submitted by him on 18.06.2019 were confidential because he has provided copies of various returns and requested not to share them with any other person. VI. That as per the Notification No. 15/2017- Central Tax(Rate) dated 27.06.2017 there was no refund of unutilized ITC available at the time of completion of the project. VII. He has also submitted copies of the VAT Returns, Service Tax Returns and GST Returns for the relevant period. 13. The Applicants Noe 1 to 12 have also filed written submissions dated 12.04.2019, 26.04.2019 and 18.06.2019 in response to the Report furnished by the DGAP as well as the submissions filed by the above Respondent Which are mentioned as under:- (i) That the amount of profiteering if acceptable to the Respondent, may be ordered for payment alongwith interest @ p.a., an interim relief to the above Applicants as they were from the lower middle class as they have been allotted Affordable Flats as per the Haryana Affordable Housing Policy-2013. (ii) That the Respondent has deposited t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that particular month and output liability would again be liable to be paid either es set-off against the ITC or in cash. Hence, giving any discount for the same during the investigation period was not justified. (iv) That the entire "saleable area" by the Respondent was not to be sold at the same rate but on different rates as per the Haryana Affordable Housing Policy-2013, according to which the flat area was to be sold at the maximum rate of Rs. 4,000/- per sq, ft. on carpet area basis and the Balcony area was to be sold at the maximum rate of Rs. 500/- per sq. ft. on the carpet area basis. Hence, any consideration of input based on the sq. ft. area basis, would be injustice to the buyers. The best way would be to allow ITC based on the amount, as the GST was also charged on the amount and not on the sq, ft. area. (v) That the Respondent has to file GSTR every month and any output liability has to be either paid during that month against ITC or in cash. Since the Respondent has only deposited the total amount of Rs. 33,625/- during the entire period of investigation in cash. remaining amount has been taken as adjusted against the ITC available and availed by him. (vi) Tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the due date until the date of refund to all the existing buyers as all of them were identifiable. Since the Respondent has right to charge interest on the delayed payments including GST component. as per the foot note given in the demand note issued to the buyers, the interest was admissible to the buyers also from the due date of payment. (xii) That the Respondent has issued Call Notice/Intimation Letter to the buyers from time to time though GSTIN and dates have been mentioned in such Call Notices yet the same have not been issued in the appropriate format as per CGST Act, 2017 and it has not been titled as "Tax Invoice-cum-Call Notice". Therefore, necessary action as may be deemed fit may be taken against the Respondent. (xiii) That with regard to para 23 of the Report dated 28.02.2018, it is mentioned that output liability of GST was to be determined monthly on the basis of declaration by the Respondent, As and when the unsold units were sold and Tax Invoices were raised, output liability Will be determined during that month only. The profiteering amount was exclusive for the period of investigation based on the output liability as declared by the Respondent in his mont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITC available in the GST regime and has reduced the ex-GST price of flats. However, the Respondent has charged GST @ 12% and 8% forcibly from the Applicants knowing fully well that he could not charge the same as per the CGST Act and the above Rules and had not re-caliberated the price of the flats inspite of the media reports. objections raised by the buyers and numerous number of mails and personal visits to the office of the Respondent and hence exemplary penalty should be imposed on him (xix)That power to determine the methodology and procedure as to whether reduction in the rate of tax or benefit of ITC has been passed on by a registered person to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices vests with this Authority under Rule 126 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, (xx) That in the GST regime, the transaction cost has increased to 12% and 8%, with input credit available on both and therefore, the cost of property transaction costs would increase by the amount of ITC, in case no benefit of ITC is passed on to the buyers. If the Respondent passed the input credit to the buyers, the increase in the property price could be restricted and then the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leable and un-sold area would not be correct approach, Builder has the right to independently determine price of the building sold after 01.07.2017 and also have the right to the entire amount of ITC till receipt of OC. After receipt of OC also builder has the right to determine prices independently and in no case builder was getting impacted due to the application of Section 17 (2). At each stage builder has independent right to determine his price, based on prevailing market conditions. In no way section 17 (2) is prejudicial to the rights of builder. Hence for the purpose of determining actual profiteering for the buyers Who had booked flats before 01.07.2017 appropriate application of Section 17 (2) was required to be undertaken. Even if the Section was applied as per the DGAP's Report, the equivalent amount deferred for allowing the benefit to the prospective buyers will have to be deposited by the builder on monthly basis in cash. (xxiv) That in case, the benefit of unsold area was claimed by the Respondent in a particular month when GSTR-3B Return has been filed, with the intention that the benefit to the prospective buyer(s) would be passed at a later date, it would be im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in such form and manner and accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed, stating the question on which the advance ruling is sought. 97(2) The question on which the advance ruling is sought under this Act, shall be in respect of,- (a) classification of any goods or services or both; (b) applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of this Act; (c) determination of time and value of supply of goods or services or both; (d) admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid; (e) determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both; (f) whether applicant is required to be registered; (g) whether any particular thing done by the applicant with respect to any goods or services or both amounts to or results in a supply of goods or services or bath, within the meaning of that term." (xxix) That as per the submissions made by the Applicants vide submissions dated 12.04-2019-para,1, it is stated that Table-1 should be replaced by Annexure-I of his submissions dated 13.06.2019 due to the typographical error. (xxx) That there were arithmetical errors in Table 'C' of the DGAP's Report. Since, the Respondent has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied on clause (b) of Paragraph 5 of Schedule II to arrive at the value of exempt ITC for tax period from 1st July, 2017 to 31st August, 2018. However, as per Notification No. 16/2019 Central Tax dated 03.2019 also known as the Central Goods and Service Tax(Second Amendment) Rules, 2019 relating to the machinery provision under Rule 42 and Rule 43 for charging section 17 (2) and Sec 17 (3) should be applied retrospectively in this case and the profiteering amount should be re-computed on the basis of the latest amendment, since the amendment provided clarity which was lacking in the statute. The following Explanations were added to Rule 42 & 43 retrospectively which clarified the method of calculating exempt ITC:- In Rule 4.2 (1) (f): "Explanation: For the purpose of this clause, it is hereby clarified that in case of supply of services covered by clause (b) of paragraph 5 of Schedule It of the said Act, value of T4 shall be zero during the construction phase because inputs and input services will be commonly used for construction of apartments booked o- or before the date of issuance of completion certificate or First occupation of the project whichever is earlier, and thos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... guous and defective then such provision needed to be applied retrospectively. He has further cited the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V. Gold Coin Health Food Private Limited = 2008 (8) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT in which it was held that:- "The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes.... In determining, therefore, the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form. If a new Act is "to explain" an earlier Act, it would be without object unless construed retrospectively. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law retrospective operation is generally intended.... An amending Act may be purely declaratory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect (ibid., pp. 468-69)." (xxxvii) Therefore, the amendments made in Rule 42 (1) (f) and Rule 43 (1) (b) relating to the clarity on the computation of exempt IT were very specific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rofiteering, the above amendments should be taken into consideration. 13. The above submissions of the Respondent and the above Applicants were sent to the DGAP for firing Reports which have been submitted by him vide his supplementary Reports dated 23.05.2019 and 23.10.2019 in which it has been stated that the Respondent has contended that improper consideration of the provisions of Section 171 of GGST Act, 2017; had been given in the investigation Report submitted by the DGAP and he has offered his own explanation and understanding of the same. however, the Respondent has agreed that as per the Section 171 (2), if there was any additional/extra benefit of ITC available under the GST regime which was not available earlier, then that benefit of ITC has to be passed on to his customers by way of reduction in prices. The DGAP has also stated that the Respondent has also claimed that under the erstwhile regime, vide Notification No. 09/2016 dated 01.03..2016, construction of residential complex under the affordable housing was exempted from Service Tax liability, and accordingly CENVAT credit for input services was no more available to him and under the Haryana VAT Act, 2003, the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cost. The DGAP has further claimed that however, under the GST, there was no such exemption and the Respondent has to pay GST on the input services received and credit for the same could also be availed by them. He has also contended that in the light of this new component of GST liability on input services received and availability of its credit, the methodology adopted by the Respondent may be one of the ways to determine the quantum of additional benefit of ITC available on implementation of GST, however, he has stated that he had not looked into these aspects of costing during the course of investigation of profiteering. However, in pars 17 of the investigation Report dated 28.02.2019 the methodology adopted by the DGAP to arrive at the additional benefit of ITC in the post-GST period has been mentioned in detail. In this regard he has further contended the extent of profiteering was arrived at, on case to case basis, by adopting suitable method based on the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the nature of the goods or services supplied and there could not be any fixed methodology for determination of the quantum of benefit to be passed on and in this case, for ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve carefully considered the Report of the DGAP, submissions made by the Respondent and based on the record it is revealed that the above Applicants had purchased flats from the Respondent in his "Green Court" project situated in Sector 90, Gurugram, Haryana which was got approved by him under the Affordable Housing Policy-2013 of the Government of Haryana. The above Applicants have complained to the Haryana State Screening Committee under Rule 128 (2) of the CGST Rules that the Respondent has not granted them the benefit of ITC which he has obtained after coming in to force of the CGST Act, 2017 by commensurate reduction in the price of the flats and was also charging VAT from them @12%. The above Committee has forwarded their complaints to the Standing Committee which has sent their applications to the DGAP for detailed investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the above Rules. The IDGAID after investigation has furnished the present Report dated 28.02.2019 to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stating that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of addition & ITC to his flat buyers including the above Applicants and has violated the provisions of Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the possession. However, it is apparent from the supplementary Report dated 23.11.2019 of the DGAP that the profiteered amount has not been worked out by him on the basis of the cost of the material and it is based on the comparison of the ratio of the CENVAT credit to the turnover obtained by the Respondent during the period from April, 2016 to June, 2017 and the benefit of ITC to the turnover which had been realised by him between the period of July. 2017 to August, 2018 and accordingly, he has computed profiteering of Rs. 5,30,34.074/-, The mathematical methodology adopted by the DGAP while calculating the profiteered amount as per Table C and D of his Report is more rational and appropriate keeping in view the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act and hence the methodology adopted by the Respondent in this regard cannot be accepted as it is not based on correct interpretation of the above provision as the details of the material purchased by him do not appear to be correct. 21. The Respondent has further claimed that keeping in view the taxes which were being imposed by the Central and the State Govt. before the GST, he was not getting benefit of Excise Duty therefore, 50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be given on account of the sold and unsold area as has been given in Table B of the Report. The above claim of the Applicants is not justified as the benefit has to be passed on only to those buyers who have purchased the fiats during the pre-GST period and who have made payments during the post-GST period as their entitlement would have to b-e computed proportionate to the amount paid by them post-GST which would vary as per the area purchased by them. Hence, it is essential to consider the sold and the unsold area. 26. The above Applicants have also contended that the entire saleable area was not to be sold at the same rates as the rates were different for the area of the flats and the balconies. However, since, the ITC benefit has to be passed on proportionate to the amount paid by a buyer in the post-GST period hence, the above different selling prices do not affect the computation of the benefit. 27. The Applicants have further contended that there has been several cancellations of the booked amounts and hence the buyers of these flats should either be paid the benefit of ITC or the amount of GST should be refunded. Since, the above issue is governed by the provisions of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Applicants has been duly provided to them and has also been inspected by them in the office of the DGAP and hence the above argument of the Applicants is not tenable. 34. That the Applicants have further claimed that with effect from 25.01.2018 the Govt, has clarified that the Respondent was not required to pay GST in cash but would have enough ITC to pay the output GST and hence, he should not recover GST from the buyers. However, the Respondent has charged GST @ 12% and 8% forcibly from the Applicants. The DGAP has confirmed vide his Report dated 28.02.2019 that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of additional ITC through commensurate reduction in the price and has also charged GST on the pre-GST and hence the above allegation of the Applicants is correct. 35. The Applicants have also averred that the DGAP has not correctly applied the provisions of Section 17 (2) and 17 (3) as they should be applied along with Rule 42 read with Section 2 (106) with reference to the "Tax Period". The above contention of the Applicants is not correct as the provisions of Rule 42 provide the "Manner of determination of ITC in respect of input or input services and reversal the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that the Respondent cannot apply different yardsticks while availing. The above benefit every month and passing on the same after a lapse of a period of more than 3 years, The Respondent cannot enrich himself at the expense of the vulnerable segment of flat buyers who have been given the above benefit by the Central as well as the State Govt, out of their own tax revenue so that accommodation can be provided to the flat buyers at the affordable prices. In case the Respondent proposes to pass on the benefit at the time of completion of the project he should also avail the ITC at the time of completion of the project. 38. The above Applicants have also admitted that calculations made by DGAP prior to 01.07.2017 after 01.07.2017 were correct, however, the percentage of benefit of ITC would increase after correction of the arithmetical errors and also by not allowing any reduction of ITC benefit due to un-sold and saleable area. The above contention is wrong to the extent that the benefit of ITC cannot be computed without taking into account the above areas as no benefit is required to be passed in respect of the unsold area. 39. The Applicants have also contended that the Respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in nature, in this case and the profiteering amount should be re-computed. In this connection it would be relevant to mention that there is no provision in the CGST Act, 2017 or in the above Notification to apply the above provisions retrospectively and hence the same cannot be applied retrospectively. 44. The above Applicants have also relied upon the Principles of Statutory Interpretation provided by Justice G. P. Singh, the cases of KeshavIal Jethalal Shah v. Mohanlal Bhagwandas = 1968 (4) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gold Coin Health Food Private Limited = 2008 (8) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT, Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. 1987 SCR (2) 1 = 1987 (1) TMI 452 - SUPREME COURT, Commercial Tax Officer Rajasthan v. M/s. Binani Cement Ltd. & another (Civil Appeal No. 336 of 2003) = 2014 (3) TMI 905 - SUPREME COURT LIC v. D. J. Bahadur (1981) 1 SCC 315 : 1981 (1) SCR 1083 = 1980 (11) TMI 157 - SUPREME COURT and Govind Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1999) 7 SCC 76 = 1999 (8) TMI 761 - SUPREME COURT in their support. Perusal of the Principles of Statutory interpretation provided by Justice G. P. Singh shows that they do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of purchase tax on Sugar under the Bihar Finance Act; 1981 and the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Price, Supply & Purchase) Act, 1981 whereas in this case there is no issue of application of two Acts and hence the law settled in the above case is of no assistance to the above Applicants. 45. It is also clear from the perusal of Table a supra that the ITC as a percentage of the total turnover that was available to the Respondent during the pre-GST period from April, 2016 to June, 2017 was 0.49% and during the post-GST period from July, 2017 to August, 2018, it was 7.73% which establishes that post-GST, the Respondent has benefited from the additional ITC to the extent of 7.24% [713% (-) 0.49%] of the turnover. 46. It is also apparent from the record that the Central Government on the recommendation of the GST Council had levied 18% GST with effective rate of 12% in view of 1/3rd abatement on value, on the construction service, vide Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. The effective GST rate on construction service in respect of affordable and Low-cost housing was further reduced from 12% to 8%, vide Notification No. 1/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25,01.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e base profiteered amount of Rs. 4,82,18,816/- which is required to be passed on as per the home buyer and unit no. wise break-up of the amount which has been given by the DGAP in Annexure-25. Since the above computation has been made by the DGAP on the basis of the Returns filed by the Respondent as well as the information supplied by him which has been duly verified by the DGAP hence the above computation of the profiteered amount is taken to be correct. Accordingly, this Authority determines the profiteered amount as Rs. 5.30,34,074/- which includes GST @12% or 8% on the base profiteered amount of 4,82,18,816/- for the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.06.2018 as per the provisions of Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 48. It is established from the perusal of the above facts of the case that the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 have been contravened by the Respondents as he has profiteered an amount of Rs. 5,30,34,074/- which includes both the profiteered amount @ 7.24% of the base price and the GST on the said profiteered amount from other recipients as well who are riot Applicants in the present proceedings. Accordingly, the above amount shall be paid to the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
