9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of Rs. 85,77,419/- during the period of investigation i.e. 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2020. The Authority determined amount of Rs. 85,77,419/- (including 12% GST) under section 133 (1) that has been profiteered by the Respondent from his home buyers (as per the list mentioned below), including Applicant No. 1, and shall be refunded by him along with interest @18% thereon, from the date when the amount was profiteered by him till the date of such payment, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (b) of the GCST Rules 2017. This Order having been passed today falls within the limitation prescribed under Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Application disposed off. - Case No. 10/2022 - - - Dated:- 12-5-2022 - SH. AMAND SHAH, TECHNICAL MEMBER AND CHAIRMAN, SH. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH, TECHNICAL MEMBER, SH. HITESH SHAH, TECHNICAL MEMBER Present:- 1 Shri Jayesh V. Rathod, Applicant No. 1 in person. 2. Shri Manoj Singh, Assistant Commissioner for the DGAP. 3. Shri Jigar Shah, Advocate and Shri Pratik Trivedi and Ms. Jalpa Raval, Chartered Accountants for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The present Report dated 29.12.2020 had been received from the Appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017 to June, 2020. (b) Copies of GSTR-3B Returns for the period July, 2017 to June, 2020. (c) Electronic Credit Ledger for the period July, 2017 to June, 2020. (d) Brief Profile of the Respondent. (e) Copy of GSTR-9 Return for the period 2017-18. (f) Copy of Relevant field of TRAN-1. (g) Copies of VAT Returns (including all annexures) and Service Tax Returns for the period April, 2016 to June, 2017. (h) Copies of all demand letters issued and sale agreement made with the Applicant No. 1. (i) Copy of Audit Report 2016-17, 2017-18 2018-19. (j) CENVAT / ITC Register for the FY 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and for the period April, 2019 to June, 2020. (k) List of home buyers in the project Krish Elite . (l) Details of Applicable tax rates, Pre-GST and Post-GST. (m) Copy of Returns submitted to RERA. (n) Status of the project Krish Elite as on 30.06.2020. 6. The DGAP has further submitted that in the Notice dated 31.07.2020, the Respondent was informed that if any information/documents was provided on confidential basis, in terms of Rule 130 of the Rules, a non-confidential summary of such information/documents was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es including zero-rated supplies . Section 17 (3) The value of exempt supply under sub-section (2) shall be such as might be prescribed and shall include supplies on which the recipient is 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 ITC pertaining to the unsold units might not fall within the ambit of this investigation and the Respondent was required to recalibrate the selling price of such units to be sold to the prospective buyers by considering the proportionate benefit of additional ITC available to them post-GST. 10. The DGAP has further reported that prior to 01.07.2017, i.e, before the GST was introduced, the Respondent was eligible to avail credit of Service Tax paid on the input services (CENVAT) credit of Central Excise Duty were not available) in respect of the flats for the project Krish Elite sold by them. The Respondent had not availed the credit of VAT. Further, post-GST, the Respondent could avail ITC of GST paid on all the inputs and input services. From the data submitted by the Respondent covering the period April, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ential Flats Commercial (in SQMT) relevant to turnover (M) = (K+L) 3,606 11,692 14. Relevant ITC [(N)= (C)*(M)/(J)] 1,12,917 84,47,070 Ratio of Input Tax Credit Post-GST [(O)=(N)/(G)*100] 0.22% 2.40% 11. The DGAP has further stated that from the above Table-A', it was clear 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 0.22 % and during the post-GST period (July, 2017 to June, 2020), it was 2.40% in Project Krish Elite . It clearly confirmed that post-GST, the Respondent had benefited from additional ITC to the tune of 2.18% [2.40% (-) 0.22%] of the turnover. 12. The DGAP has further submitted that the Central Government, on the recommendation of the GST Council, had levied 18% GST (effective rate were 12% in view of 1/3rd abatement for land value) on Construction Service, vide Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. The effective GST rate was 12% for flats. Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 32,49,23,222 5,99,58,928 38,48,82,151 Excess Collection of Demand or Profiteering Amount K=G-J 72,41,184 13,36,235 85,77,419 13. The DGAP has stated that from Table-'B' above, it was clear that the additional ITC of 2.18% of the turnover should have resulted in the commensurate reduction in the base price as well as cum-tax price. Therefore, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, the benefit of such additional ITC was required to be passed on to the recipients. 14. The DGAP has further reported that having established the fact of profiteering, the next step was to quantify the same. On the basis of the aforesaid CENVAT/ITC availability pre and post-GST and the details of the amount collected by the Respondent from the Applicant No. 1 and other home buyers during the period 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2020, the amount of benefit of ITC that needed to be passed on by the Respondent to the recipients or in other words, the profiteered amount came to Rs. 85,77,419/- for residential flats and co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the CGST Act, 2017, requiring that 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 , had been contravened in the present case. 19. The above Report was carefully considered by this Authority and a Notice dated 05.01.2021 was issued to the Respondent to explain why the Report dated 29.12.2020 furnished by the DGAP should not be accepted and his liability for profiteering in violation of the provisions of Section 171 should not be fixed. The Respondent was directed to file his written submissions which had been filed on 27.02.2021 wherein the Respondent has submitted:- i. That the Standing Committee had erred in referring the matter to the DGAP for further investigation:- a. As per Rule 128(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 on receipt of an application, the Standing Committee should examine the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application to determine whether there was prima facie evidence to support the claim of the Applicant No. 1 that the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of ITC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mensurate reduction. (2) The Central Government may, on recommendations of the Council, by notification, constitute an Authority, or empower on existing Authority constituted under any law for the time being in force to examine whether ITC availed by any registered person or the reduction in the tax rate have actually resulted in a commensurate reduction in the price of the goods or services or both supplied by him. (3) The Authority referred to in sub-section (2) should exercise such powers and discharge such functions as may be prescribed. c. Chapter XV of the CGST Rules contains Rules regarding anti-profiteering. Rule 128 of the CGST Rules contains provisions regarding the examination of application by the Standing Committee and Screening Committee. The extract of the Rule has been provided below for quick reference: 128. Examination of application by the Standing Committee and Screening Committee:- (1) The Standing Committee shall, within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of a written application, in such form and manner as may be specified by him from an interested party or from a Commissioner or any other person. examine the accu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olding that the supplier had not contravened the provisions of Section 171 limited its Order only to the particular model of Almirah. f. The application in an anti-profiteering case acts as foundation and base of an investigation. In the present case, the application was received merely by Applicant No. 1 for the Flat bearing No. D-701, Krish Elite at Nikol Ahmedabad. Hence, the investigation could not go beyond the application and should not cover other customers also who had not questioned the benefit passed on to them. g. The DGAP could not suo mote assume jurisdiction with regard to other customers of the Respondent, on receipt of reference from the Standing Committee to conduct a detailed Investigation in the matter of Applicant No. 1. It was also submitted that the DGAP could not exceed his Jurisdiction by submitting its findings for other unit buyers and recipients who had not filed any application without any reference from the Authority in this regard. h. An application filed by a dissatisfied Applicant No. 1 might be compared to a Show Cause Notice for a tax proceedings wherein the assessee were required to show cause as to why tax, interest, penalty, etc. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation No. 3/2017-Central Tax) notified the Anti-profiteering Rules which provide for constitution of authority, standing committee and steering committee, power to determine the methodology and procedure, duties of authority, examination of application, order of the authority, compliance by the registered person etc. c. Rule 126 of the CGST Rules contains provisions regarding the power to determine methodology and procedure. The extract of the relevant portion of the rule has been provided below for quick reference: Rule 126- power to determine the methodology and procedure:- The Authority may determine the methodology and procedure for determination as to whether the reduction in the rate of tax on the supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit has been passed on by the registered person to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. d. As per Rule 126, the Authority had the power to determine the methodology and procedure for determination as to whether the reduction in rate of tax on the supply of goods or services or the benefit of ITC had been passed on by the registered person to the recipient by way of commensurate r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Australia revolved around the Net Dollar Margin Rule serving as the fundamental principle for its guidelines. That was, if the new tax scheme - GST in this case-caused taxes and costs to fall by $1, then prices should fall by at least $1. At the same time if the cost of the business rose by $1 under the new tax scheme, then prices might rise by not more than $1. These regulations have been set as barometers for calculating profiteering. J. No such procedure for calculation of profiteering had been provided under the CGST Act and CGST Rules. Absence of the same violates the principles of natural justice and thus, the investigation was liable to be set aside. k. In this regard, reliance was placed on the case of Eternit Everest Ltd. vs. UOI, reported at 1997 (89) E.L.T. 28 (Mad), where the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that in absence of machinery provisions pertaining to determination and adjudication upon a claim or objection, the statutory provision would not be applicable. I. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. B.C. Srinivasa Setty, reported at (1981) 2 SCC 460 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that charging section were not attrac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he cost of construction or development of a project. The turnover reflected the amount collected as per payment or booking plans issued by the developer which was dependent upon market driven strategy. On the contrary, the ITC was accrued to a developer on the basis of actual cost incurred by it while undertaking the development of a project. Thus, accrual of ITC was not dependent on the amount collected from the buyers. As mentioned earlier, in this industry, advance was received by the suppliers/dealers even before the commencement of the projects. Likewise, units were sold after the completion of the project as well. Thus, receiving of inputs/input services and taking credit of the same did not have an immediate and direct relation with the turnover. Accordingly, calculating profiteering on the basis of turnover could not reflect the correct outcome for the Respondent. c) To understand the above submission through an illustration, a case was cited as an example wherein the developer floats 25/75 scheme for one of its projects which was launched under the pre-GST regime. As per the scheme, the unit buyers/applicants were required to pay 25 per cent of the apartment's cos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on goods or services which was not available earlier to the Respondent. However, the approach adopted by the DGAP for calculating the additional benefit accrued to the Respondent was based on the change in rate of tax on input goods and services in the GST regime itself. It was pertinent to mention that credit with respect to such inputs/input services was available to the Respondent earlier as well before the change in the rate. Further, the DGAP had not considered the tax cost which was earlier blocked in the hands of the Respondent. Hence, the above approach of comparison of ITC to turnover ratio for pre-GST and post GST period for a limited period steal of project duration was not a correct approach and profiteering computed on basis of the same was liable to be set aside on this count itself. v. That the calculation made by the DGAP of the alleged profiteering was incorrect. On application of correct calculation the alleged profiteering figures were less than costs incurred by the respondent:- a) Applying the methodology adopted by the DGAP in his Report, it was submitted that the calculations made by the DGAP of the alleged profiteering were incorrect. b) Atte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating Authority. The Standing Committee examines the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application to determine whether there was prima-facie evidence to support the claim of the Applicant No. 1 that the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of ITC had not been passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. Further in the matters, where the Standing Committee was satisfied that was a prima-facie evidence to show that the supplier had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax on the supply of goods or services or the benefit of ITC to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices, the matter was referred to the DGAP for a detailed investigation. b) For the averment made by the Respondent that the Report could not go beyond the application submitted by the Applicant No. 1 vide letter dated 27.01.2019, the DGAP has clarified that as per Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 which itself states that Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of ITC should be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne/expand the procedure and methodology in detail. However, one formula which fits all could not be set while determining such a Methodology and Procedure as the facts of each case were different. In one real estate project, date of start and completion of the project, price of the house/commercial unit, mode of payment of price, stage of completion of the project timing of purchase on inputs, rates of taxes, amount of ITC availed, total saleable area, area sold and the taxable turnover realized before and after the GST implementation would always be different than the other project and hence the amount of benefit of additional ITC to be passed on in respect of one project would not be similar to another project. Issuance of Occupancy Certificate/Completion Certificate would also affect the amount of benefit of ITC as no such benefit would be available once the above certificates were issued. Therefore, no set parameters could be fixed for determining methodology to compute the benefit of additional ITC which would be required to be passed on to the buyers of such units. Further the facts of the cases relating to the Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCGs), restaurants, construct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate consumer. iii. In those cases where businesses had gained due to the ITC should pass on the benefits to the ultimate consumer by commensurate reduction in their prices. iv. The term profit implied the comparison of income vs. expenses. The Respondent submitted that in order to arrive at the value of profit during GST period one needed to make the comparison with increased income/gain vs. consequent increase in cost/loss. The Respondent submitted that by considering the increased income/gain as absolute factor to arrive at the profit amount would tantamount to envisaging factious profit which were grossly incorrect and mis-leading. v. In order to arrive at the actual profiteering amount during GST period the increased income i.e. the ITC gained during GST period and the increase in cost of goods/ services supplied during GST period should be compared and thereby arrived at the actual profit value. vi. The DGAP in his Report had not only ignored the factual details of the escalation in cost of constructions supplied by the Respondent but also proceeded with assumptions and presumptions to arrive at the illusionary profiteering amount. vii. The Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impact over all the other legislation. The harmonious construction of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 when read with the Contract Act Transfer of Properties Act would mean that in respect of those contracts which was executed prior to introduction of GST and wherein consideration for such contract was already determined could be re adjusted to provide for profiteering impact if any due to introduction of GST. viii. Those Contracts / agreernents executed during GST period have already factored in profiteering impact due to introduction of GST at the time of arriving at the value of consideration by respecting the provisions of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017. ix. The presumption of the DGAP that no concession had been considered at the time of executing the sale of flats / shops during GST period was arbitrary, ultra-virus to Contract Act Transfer of property Act and in abundant violation of Rule of Caveat Emperor. x. There was no implication of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 in respect of the Flats / Shops sold during GST period and hence the profiteering amount as worked out by the DGAP on all such Flats / Shops in his Report was grossly incorrect. c) That Meth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -17 to Jun-20 were worked out by the Ld. DG as Rs. 85,77,419/- (Emphasis supplied) It meant that according to the DGAP the Respondent had profited / collected excess amount from the customers to the tune of Rs. 85,77,4191- after introduction of GST and thereby not reducing the price of the flats / shops sold by him. x. The Respondent failed to understand as to how the DGAP's report had indicated gain ITC of Rs. 84,47,070/- during GST period and against which they should have reduced the price to the extent of Rs. 85,77,419/-. d) That Profiteering if any should be limited to flats / shops sold before the receipt of Building Use (BU) permission:- i. Assuming but without admitting to the fact that the methodology adopted by the DGAP was correct then also the benefit on account of alleged profiteering should be limited to those units of flats and shops, which was said before the receipt of BU permission and on which tax was payable. ii. The ITC under GST legislation was admissible when the outward supply was taxable. Under the GST legislation as per Schedule III Sale of building along with sale of land in case wherein completion certificate was not received and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E 12,92,86,363 4,54,77,824 17,47,64,187 7. GST raised over Base Price (Rs.) F=E*B 1,55,14,364 54,57,339 2,09,71,703 8. Total Demand raised G=E+F 14,48,00,727 5,09,35,163 19,57,35,890 9. Recalibrated Base Price H=E*(1-D) or 97.82% of E 12,64,67,920 4,44,86,407 17,09,54,327 10. GST @12% I=H*B 1,51,76,150 53,38,369 2,05,14,519 11. Commensurate demand price J=H+I 14,16,44,070 4,98,24,776 19,14,68,846 12. Excess Collection of Demand or Profiteering Amount K=G-J 31,56,657 11,10,3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. (5) The proper officer shall, if sufficient cause is shown by the person chargeable with tax, grant time to the said person and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing. Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted for more than three times to a person during the proceedings. (6) The proper officer, in his order, shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision . ii. The law itself provided for adherence to the principle of natural justice in following the adjudication proceedings and any adjudication in violation of the same would defeat the purpose of the law and the same should be set aside. The Respondent submitted that the investigation initiated by the DGAP and the Report submitted by him was in gross violation of principle of natural justice. The Respondent had never been called upon before determining the alleged profiteering amount. He had not been given an opportunity to explain his submissions, documents inspite of the fact that the Respondent had always requested in writing in all his submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d hereinabove. iii. Even while adjudicating the DGAP had proceeded to submit the Report without offering an opportunity to the Respondent to produce the additional written reply, relevant documents and an opportunity of personal hearing. The Respondent submitted that it was technically an ex-parte Report without giving due consideration to the submissions of the Respondent. The DGAP had not given any cogent findings and attended to the contentions and submissions of the Respondent. The Respondent submitted that the impugned Report issued by the DGAP was in gross violation of principles of natural justice. iv. In the case of Cyril Lasardo (Dead) V/s Juliana Maria Lasarado 2004 (7) SCC 431 and Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department Vs. Shukla Brothers reported at 2010 (254) ELT 6 (SC)=2011 (22) STR 105 (SC), importance of principle of natural justice and its strict adherence has been upheld. v. The impugned Report of DGAP being a non-speaking had been passed in gross violation of principles of equity fair play and natural justice. Therefore, the impugned Report was liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 22. The above supplementary written submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, to give further clarifications and to elaborate upon this legislative intent behind the law, the Authority has been empowered to determine/expand the Procedure and Methodology in detail as per Rule 126 of the CGST Rules, 2017 which it has notified on 28.03.2018. In light of above facts, quantum of profiteering is determined by the DGAP by taking into account the particular facts of each case. Hence, there cannot be one-size-fits-all mathematical methodology. Moreover, there was no need to define the word commensurate as its literal meaning carries the essence of the law, as has been given in Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. d. That the Respondent raised the contention that profiteering if any should be limited to flats/shops sold before the receipt of Building Usage (BU) permission. In this connection it was stated that the Respondent had not submitted the detail of Occupancy Certificate during investigation. The Report had been prepared on the basis of the data/Details submitted by the Respondent from July 2017 to June 2020. Even in his own calculation in Table-B at para D-5 of written submissions dated 05.04.2021, the Respondent had not mentioned the date of Occupa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05.04.2021. 26. We have carefully considered the Reports filed by the DGAP, all the submissions and the documents placed on record, and the arguments advanced by the Respondent. It is clear from the plain reading of Section 171 (1) that it deals with two situations:- one relating to the passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax and the second pertaining to the passing on the benefit of the ITC. On the issue of reduction in the tax rate, it is apparent from the DGAP's Report that there has been no reduction in the rate of tax in the post GST period; hence the only issue to be examined is as to whether there was any net benefit of ITC with the introduction of GST. It is observed 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 0.22%, whereas, during the post-GST period (July-2017 to June, 2020), it was 2.40%. 27. The Respondent vide his various written submissions has contended that the Standing Committee had erred in referring the matter to the DGAP for further Investigation. The Authority finds that as per Rule 123 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Standing Committee and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 171 (1). This benefit is to be passed only w.e.f. 01.07.2017 when the provisions of Section 171 (1) have come in to force. Further, to substantiate his claim the Respondent has not submitted any documentary evidence during the course of investigation by the DGAP that the price offered to the customers booking flats post July, 2017 have been arrived after adjusting/giving benefit of additional ITC which accrued on account of GST. Therefore, the contention raised by the Respondent is not acceptable. 30. The Respondent has submitted that the report of the DGAP was based on presumptive facts and figures thereby ignoring the actual facts evident from the Written Agreement. The Respondent has stated that the ITC value adopted in the DGAP's Report was incorrect and erroneous. In this regard, the Authority finds that, the Report of the DGAP was prepared after due consideration of all the factors and data submitted by the Respondent in accordance with the 'Procedure and Methodology' prescribed by this Authority. The 'Procedure and Methodology' for passing on the benefits of reduction in the rate of tax and the benefit of ITC are enshrined in Section 171 (1) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n on each product purchased by him. The word-commensurate mentioned in the above Section gives the extent of benefit to be passed on by way of reduction in the prices which has to be computed in respect of each product based on the tax reduction or availability of additional ITC as well as the existing base price (price without GST) of the product. The computation of commensurate reduction in prices is purely a mathematical exercise which is based upon the above parameters and hence it would vary from product to product and hence no fixed mathematical methodology can be prescribed to determine the amount of benefit which a supplier is required to pass on to a recipient or the profiteered amount. One formula which fits all cannot be set while determining such a Methodology and Procedure as the facts of each case are different. In one real estate project, date of start and completion of the project, price of the house/commercial unit, mode of payment of price, stage of completion of the project, timing of purchase of inputs, rates of taxes, amount of ITC availed, total saleable area, area sold and the taxable turnover realized before and after the GST implementation would alway ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent and the said report was submitted to this Authority, which has provided ample opportunities to the Respondent to submit his position and also offered personal hearing. As such, principle of natural justice is followed in true sense and spirit. Various judgments quoted by the Respondent have been followed by the Authority before passing this Order. Therefore, the above submission of the Respondent is not acceptable. 34. In view of the above discussions, it is clear that the Respondent has profiteered by an amount of Rs. 85,77,419/- during the period of investigation i.e. 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2020. The Authority determined amount of Rs. 85,77,419/- (including 12% GST) under section 133 (1) that has been profiteered by the Respondent from his home buyers (as per the list mentioned below), including Applicant No. 1, and shall be refunded by him along with interest @18% thereon, from the date when the above amount was profiteered by him till the date of such payment, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (b) of the GCST Rules 2017. 35. We find no reason to differ from the above-detailed computation of profiteering by the DGAP. This Authority under Rule 133 (3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition (C) no. 3/2020 , while taking suo moto 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 limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its subsequent Order dated 10.01.2022 has extended the period(s) of limitation till 28.02.2022 and the relevant portion of the said Order is as follows:- The Order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent Orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general of special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
