9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate or ITC structure which could be compared with the post-GST tax rate and ITC. On this basis, the DGAP has reported that the Respondent had neither benefited from additional ITC nor had there been a reduction in the tax rate in the post-GST period and therefore it does not qualify to be a case of profiteering. The instant case does not fall under the ambit of Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the allegation that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of ITC in this case is not found sustainable - Application dismissed being not maintainable. - Case No. 29/2020 - - - Dated:- 27-5-2020 - DR. B. N. SHARMA, CHAIRMAN, SH. J. C. CHAUHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER, SH. AMAND SHAH, TECHNICAL MEMBER Present:- 1. None for Applicants and the Respondent. ORDER 1. The present Report dated 06.12.2019 has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after a detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 1 had filed an application dated 20.02.2019 (Annexure-1) stating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case had been carried out for the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2019. 5. In his Report the DGAP has stated that in response to the notice dated 09.07.2019, the Respondent replied vide letters/e-mails dated 19.07.2019 (Annex-4) 22.07.2019 (Annex-5), 22.10.2019 (Annex-6), 30.10.2019 (Annex-7) 19.11.2019 (Annex-8) and 26.11.2019 (Annex-9). The Respondent has stated:- a. That a project in the name of Hero Homes at Sector-104, Dwarka Expressway. Gurugram, Harayana-122001 had been executed by him and the said project had been registered approved by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram ( HARERA ) under Section 5 of the Real Estate (Regulation Development) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 13.11.2018 bearing registration number RC/REP/HARERA/GGM/2018/24 dated 13.11.2018. b. That the building plan of the project had been approved by the Town and Country Planning (TCP), Haryana vide Memo No. ZP968/AD (RA)/2018/21871 dated 24.07.2018 i.e. post implementation of Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. c. That the project was launched on 07.12.2018 i.e post implementation of GST. d. That the construction activity of the project had been started in the month of March ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... booking 04.02.19 BSP 4,00,000/- 24,000/- 24,000/- 4,48,000/- 2. Within 30 days of booking 06.03.19 BSP EDC IDC PLC 2,32,470/- 52,203/- 35,718/- 13,948/- -- 3,215/- 13,948/- -- 3,215/- 3,54,717/- 3. Within 90 days of booking 05.05.19 BSP EDC IDC PLC 6,32,470/- 52,203/- 35,718/- 37,948/- -- 3,215/- 37,948/- -- 3,215/- 8,02,717/- 4. Within 150 days of booking 04.07.19 BSP EDC IDC PLC 6,32,470/- 52,203/- 35,718/- 37,498/- -- 3,215 37,498/- -- 3,215 8,02,717/- 5. On Applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate of tax (@ 4.5%) in the Pre-GST era was lower than the effective rate of tax @ 8% or 12% as applicable, in Post-GST era. 10. Further, the DGAP has mentioned that on scrutiny of the documents received from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, it was observed that the Haryana State Screening Committee had stated that in the subject case, extra charging of GST by the Respondent and date of booking was not mentioned. The Applicant No. 1 had made an application dated 02.02.2019 for booking of Apartment No. 1602 in Tower T-3 of the Project having super area 1099 sq. ft. as per his preference of the location of the Apartment and that the first payment was made by the Applicant vide Cheque No. 604081 dated 04.02.2019 of ₹ 4,00,000/-. It was also stated that the price charged for the said residential flat was a new project developed and constructed by the Respondent after implementation of GST, hence the anti-profiteering provisions should not be applicable to this project. 11. The DGAP has further stated that the Respondent contended that Anti-profiteering provisions do not apply to the project Hero Homes as this project was not in existence before the implementat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an increase in the benefit of ITC. In the present case, since the project itself was launched after implementation of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, there was no pre-GST tax rate or ITC availability that could be compared with the post-GST tax rate and ITC, to determine whether there was any benefit that was required to be passed on by way of reduced price. 14. Further. the DGAP has concluded that in view of the afore mentioned findings, it appeared that Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 has not been contravened by the Respondent in the present case. 15. The above investigation Report was received by this Authority from the DGAP on 10.12.2019 and was considered in its sitting held on 12.12.2019 and it was decided to accord an opportunity of hearing on 07.01.2020 to the Applicant No. 1 only. Applicant No. 1 vide e-mail dated 08.01.2020 has stated that he was in agreement with the investigation Report of the DGAP. 16. This Authority has carefully examined the DGAP's Report and the written submissions of the Applicant No. 1 placed on record. The issues to be decided by the Authority are as under:- 1) Whether there was any violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
