9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctively along with the interest @ 18% per annum from the dates from which the above amount was collected by him from them till the payment is made, within a period of 3 months from the date of passing of this order as per the details mentioned in Annexure-15 attached with the Report dated 10.12.2019 in terms of Rule 133 (3) (b) of the above Rules. The Respondent shall not adjust any excess ITC benefit which he has passed on as per Annexure-16 against the benefit which is due to the beneficiaries as per Annexure-15. In case the above amount is not refunded by the Respondent during the above period it shall be recovered by the concerned Commissioner CGST/CGST and paid to the eligible buyers. This Authority under Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017 orders that the Respondent shall reduce the prices to be realized from the buyers of the flats of the above Project commensurate with the benefit of ITC received by him, Since the present investigation is only up to 31.03.2019 any benefit of ITC which accrues subsequently shall also be passed on to the buyers by the Respondent Accordingly, the DGAP under 133 (4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 is directed to further investigate the amount of b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he consideration paid before 01.07.2017, but later on, in July 2017, the Respondent had raised demand for payment of GST @ 12% from him on the amount paid prior to the imposition of the GSL Along with the application, the Applicant had submitted the following documents:- (i) Duly filled in Form APAF-1. (ii) Clarification about applicability of GST on under construction and ready-to-move-in property issued by the CBEC (iii) Applicant's Ledger in the books of M/s. Gaursons. (iv) Correspondence of Applicant with M/s. Gaursons through e-mails. (v) Progress report of the project "16th Park View". 2. The complaint lodged by the above Applicant was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering in its meetings held on 07.08.2018 and 08.08,2018 and it was decided to forward the same to the DGAP to conduct a detailed investigation. 3, While submitting the above Report the DGAP in paras 4 to 6 of the Report had stated that:- "4. On scrutiny of the documents received from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, it is observed that the Uttar Pradesh State Screening Committee has stated that in the subject case, the benefit of input tax credit had not been passed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enefit of ITC to him which the Respondent had availed w.e.f. 01.07.2011 He had also submitted copy of the demand letter dated 17.07.2017 which showed that the Respondent had informed the above Applicant that his instalments were due on 21.07.2017 i.e. after coming in to force of the GST due to which it prima facie appeared that the above Applicant was entitled to the benefit of ITC. He had also submitted a copy of the letter dated 23.04.201B written by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to the Commissioner CGST, Lucknow which showed that after thorough enquiry the Additional Commissioner had found that the Respondent had claimed benefit of ITC through the TRAN-1 statements as well as the regular GSTR-3B Returns however, he had not passed on the benefit of ITC to the recipients. Based on the above evidence it was decided to call the Respondent to explain whether the above Applicant was entitled to the benefit of ITC or not Accordingly further hearings were held on 12.12.2018 and 19.12.2018, where the Respondent was represented by Sh. Ajay Sharma, Chartered Accountant, while the Applicant No. 1 was present in person along with Sh. Prabhat K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DGAP was also asked to file his reply vide order dated 22.01.2019 on the submissions of the above Applicant dated 22.01.2019 and vide his Report dated 30.01.2019 the DGAP had stated that as per the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, applicable to the Service Tax "where the invoice was raised or payment was received prior to the appointed date under GST (01.0712017), the point of taxation would arise before the appointed day and thus, such transaction would attract Service Tax and not GST". The DGAP had also quoted the provisions of Sections 142 (11) 13 (2) and 31 of the CGST Act, 2017 in his support. The Report had also mentioned that based on the above provisions of the Act since the Respondent had issued the tax invoice on 21.07.2017 which was the due date of payment as per the contract and as per Section 13 (2) (a), the time of supply of service was the date of receipt of payment, i.e. 30.06.2017 in the present case. 8. During these hearings the Respondent vide his submissions dated 04.02.2019 also submitted that as per the recommendation of the CREDAI he had already passed on the benefit of ITC @ 4% in respect of the completed projects and 6% in respect of the on going projects. V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the builder has made payments for his tax liabilities pertaining to reverse charge by cash as per the current legal provisions and has utilized it for payment of his liabilities of CST on his outward supplies. No other payment of taxes has been made through the cash edger." 10. It was absolutely clear from the perusal of para (ii) above that the recommendation Of the Uttar Pradesh Screening Committee made to the Standing Committee for investigation in to the complaint lodged by the Applicant No, I was based on the report of the Additional Commissioner SGST, HQ Lucknow in which the documentary evidence of GSTR-3B Returns and TRAN-1 Statements was duly relied upon, copies of which were also supplied to the DGAP and it was specifically recorded by the above Committee that the Respondent had availed ITC but had not passed on the benefit of ITC to the above Applicant. However, in spite of the documentary evidence the DGAP had chosen not to examine the Applicant and had summarily rejected his claim against all cannons of natural justice by stating in para 4 of his Report dated 23.10.2018 that "a perusal of the application revealed that the applicant had alleged that the Responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Avenue] 1668 NIL NIL 3. Gaur City-1(4th Avenue] 680 NIL NIL 4. Gaur City-1 (5th Avenue] 1320 NIL NIL 5. Gaur City-1 (6th Avenue) 1118 NIL NIL 6. Gaur City-1 (7th Avenue) 2888 60% Carpet Area upto 60 Sq. Mtr-3.5% other-6% 7. Gaur City-1 (7th Avenue High street) 92 4% 4% 8. Gaur City-2 (City Arcade) 119 4% 4% 9. Gaur City-2 (City Galleria) 146 Nil NIL 10. Gaur City-1 (City Plaza) 218 NIL NIL 11. Gaur City-1 (Gaur City Center} 3638 4% 4% 12. Gaur City Mall (Office Spaces) 1373 4% 4% 13. Gaur Mall (Gaur Suits) 135 4% 4% 14. Gaur City-2 (Sanskriti Vihar) 1079 NIL NIL 15. Gaur City-2 (11th Avenue) 2000 NIL NIL 16. Gaur-2 (12th Avenue) 4813 Tower A to G & K-4% Tower H,I,J,L,M,N,V-6% Area upto 60 Sq. Mtr. Tower A to G & K 2.67% Tower H,I,J,L,M,N,V-3.50% others As as period rate 18. Gaur City-2 (14th Avenue High Street) 108 4% 4% 19. Gaur City-2 (16th Avenue) 2080 NIL NIL 20. Gaur Saundaryam 2064 Tower Carnation & Blossam -4% others-6% Tower Carnation & Blossam -4% others-6% 21. Gaur Saundaryam (High Street) 122 4% 4% 22. Gaur Sportswood 750 Tower C to J-4% Tower B-6% Tower Carnation & Bloss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o conduct investigation in respect of all the ongoing projects of the Respondent after coming in to force of the GST in which the benefit of ITC was required to be passed on by the Respondent. 15. The DGAP has also stated that on receipt of the matter from this Authority, it was decided to initiate investigation in respect of project "16th Park View" only and not in respect of the other projects in the absence of any allegation of profiteering in respect of the other projects. In order to collect evidence necessary to determine whether the benefit of ITC has been passed on by the Respondent to the above Applicant in respect of the construction service supplied by the Respondent in the project "16th Park View", a Notice under Rule 129 (3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 was issued by the DGAP on 24.04.2019, calling upon the Respondent to reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of ITC has not been passed on to the above Applicant by way of commensurate reduction in price and if so, to so moto determine the quantum thereof and indicate the same in his reply to the Notice as well as to furnish all the supporting documents, Further, in the said Notice dated 24.04.2019, the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reduction/reversal/loss of credit in GST would resultantly cause an impact on the GST credit already passed/liable to be passed on. Some of the circumstances are mentioned below.- (a) Reversal of ITC in future due to receipt of Completion Certificate. (b) Overflow of ITC at the end of the Project etc. Therefore, such critical factors needed to be given appropriate weightage and the Respondent should be allowed to make the final computation at the end of the project 17. The DGAP has also stated that apart from the above, during the personal hearing held before this Authority, the Respondent has also submitted the following: (i) That he was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and was working in the Real Estate Sector including construction of residential and commercial complexes. (ii) That the real estate industry was a complex business in terms of the involvement of the goods & services. Therefore, it was also a complex job to identify the benefit out of anti-profiteering measures. In addition, there was no methodology (clear or unclear) provided under the GST law, how to proceed for the calculations of the benefits and their distribution. The problem gets aggr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest cost has increased due to delay in demand. The implementation and compliance cost has also gone up due to implementation of the GST and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. (viii) That the calculation of benefit of ITC post introduction of GST and its distribution was a critical and complex task for the Respondent and the industry. Further. due to lack of availability of mechanism and regulation for identification of profiteering, industry as a whole was unable to calculate the effect of the benefit due to implementation of the GST, because it was a meticulous and difficult exercise to determine the quantum of benefit specifically in case of B2C supplies. (ix) That in the real estate industry in which the Respondent was operating had no evidence of any rate reduction due to introduction of the GST. In respect of the benefit of ITC, the Respondent has passed on the benefit on adhoc basis in line with the guidelines issued by the CREDAI and that benefit was more than the benefit actually accrued. (x) That the transitional credit has been taken in respect of the stock of the inputs and the built in material for the unsold stock, as per section 140 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad gone beyond the actual benefit which was earned proportionate to the demand raised in GST era. Therefore, there was no question of not complying with section 171 of the CGST Act i.e. the Anti-profiteering measures, However, the Respondent was obliged to reconsider these benefits at the completion of the project and would make adjustments accordingly. (xii) That the benefit of 4% of basic amount of the demand with charging of tax on the instalments due post-GST has been passed on to the above Applicant which has been reflected in the Applicant's ledger (available at www.gaursonsindia.com, customer portal) which has been intimated to him vide e-mails dated 18.12.2017 & July, 2017. 18. The DGAP has also informed that vide the aforementioned letters and e-mails, the Respondent has submitted the following documents/information:- (a) Copies of GSTR-I Returns for the period from July, 2017 to March, 2019. (b) Copies of GSTR-3B Returns for the period from July, 2017 to March, 2019, (c) Copies of VAT & ST-3 Returns for the period from April, 2016 to June, 2017. (d) Copies of all demand letters and sale agreement/contract issued in the name of the Applicant (e) Details o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 273.000 - - 32,760 - 306,760 6. On Completion 18th Floor Roof Slab 21.07.2017 10.00% 273.000 - - 32,760 - 305,760 7. On Completion 22nd Floor Roof Slab 21.07.2017 5.00% 136,500 - - 16,380 (87,326) 65,554 8. At the time offer for fit out Not yet due on 31.03.2019 10.00% 273.000 25,000 - - 32,760 - 3,30,760 Total 100.00% 2,730,000 500 25,000 12,360 - 294,840 (87,326) 29,75374 25,59,441 22. The DGAP has further submitted that before enquiring into the allegation of profiteering it was important to examine Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 which governed the anti-profiteering provisions under GST. Section 171 (1) reads as "Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of ITC shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices." Thus. the legal requirement was abundantly clear that in the even of a benefit of ITC or reduction in the rate of tax, there must be a commensurate reduction in the prices of the goods or services, Such reduction could obviously be in money terms only, so that the final price payable by a consumer got reduced. This was the legally prescribed mechanism for pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, whichever was earlier." Thus, the ITC pertaining to the residential units which were under construction but not sold was provisional ITC which might be required to be reversed by the Respondent, if such units remained unsold at the time of issue of the completion certificate, in terms of Section 17(2) & Section 17(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, which read as under:- Section 17 (2) "Where the goods or services or both was used by the registered person partly for effecting taxable supplies including zero-rated supplies under this Act or under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act and partly for effecting exempted supplies under the said Acts, the amount of credit shall be restricted to so much of the input tax as was attributable to the said taxable supplies including zero-rated supplies." Section 17 (3) "The value of exempted supply under sub-section (2) shall be such as might be prescribed and shall include supplies on which the recipient was liable to pay tax on reverse charge basis, transactions in securities, sale of land and, subject to Clause (b) of paragraph 5 of Schedule II, sale of building". Therefore, the DGAP has further claimed that the ITC pertaining to the u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Service Tax Paid on input service used (A) 2,34,01,522 1,17,49,823 3,51,51,345 - - - 2. Input Tax Credit of VAT Paid on Purchase of Inputs (B) - - - - - - 3. Input Tax Credit of GST Availed (C) - - - 8,90,10,873 20,67,41,284 29,57,52,157 4. Total CENVAT/Input Tax Credit Available (D)=(A+B) or (C) 2,34,01,522 1,17,49,823 3,51,51,345 8,90,10,873 20,67,41,284 29,57,52,157 5. Turnover for Residential Flats as per Home Buyers List (E) 1,37,5042,311 3,05,16,40,295 6. Total Saleable Build-up Area (in SQF) (F) 38,79,960 38,79,960 7. Total Sold Build-up Area relevant to turnover as per Home Buyers List (in SQF) (G) 23,48,600 29,29,025 8. Relevant ITC [(H)=(D)*(G)/(F)] 2,12,77,655 22,32,66,596 Ratio of ITC Post-GST [(I)=(H)/(E)] 1.55% 7.32% 27. From the Table-'E', the DGAP has submitted that the ITC as a percentage of the turnover that was available to the Respondent during the pre-GST period (April, 2016 to June, 2017) was 1.55% and during the post-GST period (July, 2017 to March, 2019), it was 7.32%. This clearly confirmed that post-GST, the Respondent has benefited from additional ITC to the tune of 5.77% [7.32% (-) 1.55%] of the turnove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the base profiteered amount of ₹ 17,60,79,645/- The home buyer and unit no. wise break-up of this amount has been given in Annexure-14 of the DGAP's Report dated 06.12.2019. This amount was inclusive of ₹ 1,41,139/-(including GST on the base profiteered amount of ₹ 1,26.017/-) which was the benefit of ITC required to be passed on to the above Applicant, who has been mentioned at serial no. 219 of Annexure-14. 29. The DGAP has further averred that the above computation of profiteering was with respect to 2,349 home buyers, whereas the Respondent has booked 2,309 units till 31.03.2019. 460 customers who have booked the flats and also paid the booking amounts in the pre-GST period, have not paid any consideration during the post-GST period from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019 (period under investigation). Therefore, if the ITC in respect of these 460 units was considered to calculate the profiteering in respect of 2,349 units where payments have been received after GST, the ITC as a percentage of turnover might be erroneous. Therefore, the benefit of ITC in respect of these 460 units might be calculated when the consideration would be received from such units by taking in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DGAP has further stated that the benefit of additional ITC to the tune of 5.77% of the turnover has accrued to the Respondent post-GST and the same was required to be passed on by him to the above Applicant and the other recipients, The DGAP has further stated that Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 appeared to have been contravened by the Respondent, inasmuch as the additional benefit of ITC @ 5.77% of the base prices received by the Respondent during the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019, has not been passed on by him to the Applicant No. 1 and the other recipients. On this account, the Respondent has realized an additional amount to the tune of ₹ 53,813/- from the Applicant as has been mentioned at Sr. No. 1 of Table-'G' Further, the investigation has revealed that the Respondent has also realized an additional amount of ₹ 1,04,23,791/- as has been mentioned at Sr. No. 2 of Table- from 907 other recipients who were not Applicants in the present proceedings. These recipients were identifiable as per the documents provided by the Respondent, giving the names and addresses along with Unit Nos, allotted to such recipients. Therefore, this additional amount of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15% to 18%. The Respondent has submitted following illustration to strengthen his contention:- Pre-GST Post-GST Particulars Amount (in Lacs) Amount (in Lacs) Expenses 1000 1000 Service Tax paid @15% 150 180 Cenvat Credit available 150 180 Turnover 5000 5000 CENVAT/Turnover 3.00% 3.60% Incremental .60% The Respondent has also claimed from the above Table that as per the methodology adopted by the DGAP, there has been profiteering equivalent to .60% but factually no benefit has accrued to the Respondent. Thus, amount of profiteering calculated by the DGAP has included approximately (.06/3.6%) of incremental ITC availed on services that has accrued due to change in the rate of tax. The Respondent has further submitted that in the Instant case. during the post GST regime, he has availed ITC amounting to ₹ 16,36,99,492/-pertaining to the input services which meant that ITC amounting to ₹ 2,72,83,248 (16.67% of 16,36,99,491) pertained to the incremental tax paid on procurement of input services which should be excluded from the total amount of profiteering calculated by the DGAP. 36. The Respondent has also claimed that profiteered amount should have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of GST has not been examined. Further, there should be no extra liability on the Respondent on account of increase in the rate of GST as the supplier of input services could now avail ITC on all the purchases made by them resulting in reduction in prices of the materials purchased by them which they would pass on to the Respondent, The DGAP has also claimed that Section 171 of the Act obliged the supplier to pass on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax or the benefit of ITC availed by the supplier to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices. Therefore, the approach and methodology adopted by the DGAP was in consonance with the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. B. On the issue of increased cost of the project should have been considered while calculating profiteering:- The DGAP has stated that Section 171 (1) provided that in the event of a benefit of ITC or reduction in the rate of tax, there must be a commensurate reduction in the prices of the goods or services. Such reduction could obviously be in monetary terms only so that the final price payable by a consumer got reduced. This was the legally prescribed mechanism for passing on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide its order dated 28.03.2019 passed under Rule 133 (4) of the above Rules had directed the DGAP to reinvestigate the above complaint and furnish his Report. 39. Accordingly, the DGAP has submitted his Report dated 10.12.2019 in which he has stated that the ITC as a percentage of the total turnover which was available to the Respondent during the pre-GST period was 1.55% and during the post-GST period this ratio was 7.32% as per the Table-E mentioned above and therefore, the Respondent has benefited from the additional ITC to the tune of 5.77% (7.32% - 1.55%) of the total turnover which he was required to pass on to the flat buyers of this Project. Vide Table-F supra of the Report it has also been found that the Respondent has not reduced the basic prices of his flats by 5.77% due to additional benefit of ITC and by charging GST at the increased rate of 12% on the pre-GST basic prices, he has contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The amount of benefit of ITC which has not been passed on by the Respondent or the profiteered amount comes to ₹ 19,72,09,203/- which includes 12% GST as per Annexure-14 of the Report dated 10.12,2019. This amount also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port dated 10.12.2019. He has further stated that the excess benefit passed on to some recipients, could not be set off against the additional benefit required to be passed on to the other recipients and it could only be adjusted against any future benefit that might accrue to such recipients. Based on the above admission Of the DGAP the benefit of ITC passed on by the Respondent as per Table-G is held to be correct, However, the Respondent shall pass on the remaining benefit to the 908 buyers and the Applicant No. 1 as per Annexure-15, He shall also not adjust the excess benefit passed on to the flat buyers mentioned in Annexure-16 against the benefit to be passed on to the beneficiaries mentioned in Annexure-15. 42. The Respondent has contended that the Service Tax was being computed @15% during the pre GST period which was increased to in the post GST period and hence this incremental tax of 3% paid on the services should not form part of the profiteered amount as it did not amount to additional benefit of ITC. In this regard it would be pertinent to mention that the Respondent cannot appropriate the additional ITC which he has earned after coming in to force of the ITC as it d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hased nor separate records of the same are allowed to be maintained. In case the plea of the Respondent is accepted he would be able to illegally appropriate the ITC which he has earned on the services which he is not entitled to do as the benefit Of ITC flows from the public exchequer. Therefore, the above claim of the Respondent is not tenable. 44. In respect of the claim of the Respondent that the profiteering amount should be restricted to the ITC availed in respect of goods only proportionate to the sold and unsold area it would be relevant to mention that as is apparent from Column No, 8 of Table-E the "Relevant ITC" has been computed by multiplying the total CENVAT/ITC available during the pre and the post GST periods with the total sold built up area and dividing it with the total saleable built up area and hence, the computation of profiteered amount has been made as per the claim of the Respondent, 45. The Respondent has further contended that he has incurred expenses on marketing of his project by paying commissions which has increased the cost of the project which should have been considered while calculating the profiteering. On this issue it is mentioned that market ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re-15. In case the above amount is not refunded by the Respondent during the above period it shall be recovered by the concerned Commissioner CGST/CGST and paid to the eligible buyers, 48. Accordingly, this Authority under Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017 orders that the Respondent shall reduce the prices to be realized from the buyers of the flats of the above Project commensurate with the benefit of ITC received by him as has been detailed above, Since the present investigation is only up to 31.03.2019 any benefit of ITC which accrues subsequently shall also be passed on to the buyers by the Respondent Accordingly, the DGAP under 133 (4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 is directed to further investigate the amount of benefit which is required to be passed on by the Respondent w.e.f. 01.042019 till 30.06.2020 or till the date of issue of Completion Certificate whichever is earlier. 49. It is also evident from the above narration of the facts that the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by him in his above project in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and he has thus resorted to profiteering. Henc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 14.03.2019 that he was executing 33 projects, had passed on benefit of ITC in respect of 14 projects and had not charged GST in respect of 12 projects. He has also admitted that he has completed 10 projects before coming in to force of the GST and sold plots only in respect of the 2 projects. He has specifically admitted vide his above submissions that he has passed on an amount of ₹ 1,63,18,191/- as ITC benefit in respect of his project "2nd Park View" and an amount of ₹ 1,54,05,532/- in respect of his project "GYC Galleria". The details of these projects and respective ITC claimed to have been passed on by the Respondent vide his submissions dated 27.02.2019 are as under;- Table-H S.No. Project Name Total No. of Units as on 31/12/2018 GST Benefit to per GST Customers GST Benefit to per GST Customer After 25.01.2018 (Due to rate change) 1. Gaur Siddartham 2476 7.50% 3.50% 2. Gaur City-I (1st Avenue] 1668 NIL NIL 3. Gaur City-1(4th Avenue] 680 NIL NIL 4. Gaur City-1 (5th Avenue] 1320 NIL NIL 5. Gaur City-1 (6th Avenue) 1118 NIL NIL 6. Gaur City-1 (7th Avenue) 2888 60% Carpet Area upto 60 Sq. Mtr-3.5% other-6% 7. Gaur City-1 (7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has observed that:- "We, however, make it clear that this interim order shall not come in the way of the National Anti Profiteering Authority in cases where it has suo moto taken action." (Emphasis supplied) Accordingly, the DGAP is directed to investigate the issue of passing on the benefit of additional ITC in respect of the above projects and submit his Report in terms of Rule 133 (5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 which reads as under:- "(5)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (4), where upon receipt of the report of the Director General of Anti-profiteering referred to in sub-rule (6) of rule 129, the Authority has reasons to believe that there has been contravention of the provisions of section 171 in respect of goods or services or both other than those covered in the said report, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing within the time limit specified in sub-rule (1), direct the Director General of Anti-profiteering to cause investigation or inquiry with regard to such other goods or services or both, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and these rules. (b) The investigation or enquiry under clause (a) shall be deemed to be a new investigation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
