9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... coming in to force of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017. It is also clear that the homebuyers were allotted flats only after coming in to force of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017. As project was launched after implementation of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, apparently there was no pre-GST tax rate or input tax credit availability that could be compared with the post-GST tax rate and the input tax credit, to determine whether there was any benefit that was required to be passed on by way of reduced prices. Phase III of the project it is yet to be launched and had not been registered with RERA till date. Thus, it is established that the Respondent has not contravened the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and there are no merit in the instant case and the same is accordingly dismissed. Time Limitation - Rule 133(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The quasi-judicial proceedings in the matter could not be completed by the Authority due to lack of required quorum of members in the Authority during the period 29.04.2021 till 23.02.2022, and that the minimum quorum was restored only w.e.f. 23.02.2022 and hence the matter was taken up for quasi-judicial proceedings vide Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 Land Purchased 01.03.2016 Sale Deed 2. Change of Land Use (License) 16.12.2016 Copy of Form LC-V 3. Approval for building plan 28.11.2017 Copy of Form BR-III 4. RERA Registration 22.12.2017 RERA Registration Certificate 5. Forest NOC 12.01.2018 Copy of NOC 6. Advertisement for booking of flats published in Newspaper 18.01.2018 25.01.2018 Copy of Newspapers 7. Letter of acceptance issued to Contractor 16.04.2018 Copy of LOA 8. Forest and Aravali NOC 29.05.2018 Copy of NOC 9. STP permission Letter for conducting draw for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... projects, which have commenced after introduction of GST and requested to close the investigation forthwith, in line with the legal provision as applied by DGAP and upheld by this Authority. (iv) He has submitted further, the Phase-wise details of construction of different towers of First Phase-I- Residential Tower-A1, A2, A3, A4, B1 and B2, Commercial Tower C followed by Phase-II- Residential Tower- D1 and D2, Commercial Tower E. 5. The DGAP has further states that the claim of the Respondent that the Phase-II and III of project Aangan was launched in post-GST era seems true and can be verified independently from the records of the State Government, RERA website and documents submitted by the Respondent. It has been observed by the DGAP that Project- 'Aangan' was covered under Affordable Housing Scheme. The scheme has to follow a set of guidelines of the State Government of Haryana issued vide Notification No. PF-27/48921 dated 19.08.2013 under Affordable Housing Policy, 2013 and all the builders have to abide by this policy. The date of commencement of the project, allotment rates, allotment criteria and eligibility criteria, were defined in the policy itself. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en place post introduction of GST, there was no pre-GST tax rate or input tax credit structure which could be compared with the post-GST tax rate and input tax credit. It appeared to the DGAP that the provisions of Section 171(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, relating to profiteering, would not be attracted. 9. The DGAP has also observed that the project Aangan, Phase-III was yet to be launched and had not been registered with RERA till date. Therefore, in respect of the project Aangan, Phase-III , question of profiteering does not arise. 10. The DGAP has conclusively submitted that the provisions of Section 171(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are attracted in neither Phase II nor Phase III of the Project Aangan . 11. The above Report was considered by the Authority in its sitting and vide its order dated 15.02.2021 the DGAP was directed to file clarification under Rule 133(2A) i. Whether any ITC has been claimed by the Respondent in the pre GST period. ii. How many projects are registered under the present registration iii. How the ITC has been apportioned amongst these projects under the same registration. 12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase-I , as per the GSTR 3B returns, it was seen that the total ITC for the entire project was ₹ 7,08,27,978/- (including transitional credit of ₹ 2,43,044/-) out of which ITC apportioned towards Project Phase I was ₹ 5,91,28,513/-. The said amount of ITC for 'Project - Aangan' Phase-I has been confirmed by the NAA vide the above mentioned Order No. 65/2020 dated 16.10.2020. 13. We have carefully considered the DGAP's Report and all other submissions which have been placed on record and find that the following issues are required to be settled in the present proceedings:- I. Whether there is benefit of additional ITC available to the Respondent which has not been passed on by him? II. Whether there is any violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 by the Respondent? 14. Perusal of the record reveals that the Project 'Aangan' consist of three Phases viz. I, II and III. Regarding Phase I the DGAP vide Report dated 14.06.2019 had alleged Profiteering of ₹ 6,24,48,008/- and the same had been confirmed by this Authority vide its Order dated 65/2020 dated 16.10.2020. Vide the same order DGAP was dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Act, 2017 and we find no merit in the instant case and the same is accordingly dismissed. 18. The quasi-judicial proceedings in the matter could not be completed by the Authority due to lack of required quorum of members in the Authority during the period 29.04.2021 till 23.02.2022, and that the minimum quorum was restored only w.e.f. 23.02.2022 and hence the matter was taken up for quasi-judicial proceedings vide Order dated 23.03.2022 and the Applicant No. 1 was given one more opportunity to file written submissions against the DGAP's Report. However, the Applicant No. 1 vide his email dated 29.03.2022 reiterated his earlier submissions made via email dated 13.12.2020. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its Order dated 23.03.2020, while taking suomoto cognizance of the situation arising on account of Covid-19 pandemic, has extended the period of limitations prescribed under general law of limitation or any other specified laws (both Central and State) including those prescribed under Rule 133(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, as is clear from the said Order which states as follows:- A period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the Limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
