9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jects and receipt of the payments had taken place in the post-GST regime and hence, there was no pre-GST tax rate or ITC 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 did not qualify to be a case of profiteering - The instant case does not fall under the ambit of the Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. This Order having been passed today falls within the limitation prescribed under Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. - Case No. 49/2022 - - - Dated:- 28-7-2022 - SH. AMAND SHAH, TECHNICAL MEMBER CHAIRMAN, SH. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH, TECHNICAL MEMBER, SH. HITESH SHAH, TECHNICAL MEMBER. Present:- 1. None for the DGAP 2. None for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The present Report dated 28.08.2020 has been received from 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 DGAP was directe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent has also submitted that there could be no profiteering in respect of other ongoing projects of the Respondent as referred by DGAP in his notice. It was important to note the details/information in respect of the following projects:- (i) Project A: ROF Aalayas of 5 acres, Sector-102, Gurugram (ii) Project B: ROF Aalayas Phase II, Sector-102, Gurugram (iii) Project C: ROF Amaltas, Sector-92, Gurugram (c) The Respondent has further submitted that in respect of Project A, i.e. ROF Aalayas of 5 acres, Sector-102, Gurugram, the DGAP had already concluded his investigation and had issued a report dated 22.04.2019 and even this Authority had already passed an Order No. 52 dated 21.10.2019 under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, again asking for the information in respect of the said project seemed to be a prima facie error and the same could not be the intention of the DGAP while issuing the above notice. (d) With regard to Project B and Project C i.e ROF Aalayas Phase II, Sector-102, Gurugram and ROF Amaltas, Sector-92 Gurugram respectively, the Respondent submitted that both the projects were registered under RERA in May, 2019 only. Further, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vide the optional Scheme introduced under Notification No. 03/2019-Central Tax (Rate) dated 29.03.2019, GST on construction service in respect of affordable and low cost house upto a carpet area 60 square metres was 1% [1.5%-i.e. 0.5(1/3 of 1.5%)] and no input tax credit was eligible under the said notification. 6. The DGAP has also observed that, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana had not stayed the present investigation in the writ proceedings. Further. this Authority had passed a reasonable Order as in the earlier case a profiteering of Rs. 2,47,48,549/- had been confirmed and therefore it was natural to investigate the other projects as the issue pertains to ITC benefit to be passed on to the consumers who were mostly voiceless. 7. The DGAP has intimated that the contention of the Respondent that project ROF Aalayas of 5 Acres, Sector-102, Gurugram , had already been investigated by the DGAP and the DGAP had submitted his Report dated 22.04.2019. This Authority had passed Order No. 52/2019 dated 21_10.2019 under the section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and had confirmed the profiteering amount of Rs. 2,47,48,549/-. The DGAP has also noted that out of the three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect to the four projects under investigation that:- (i) The Project, ROF Aalayas of 5 Acres, Sector-102, Gurugram has already been investigated and profiteering has been confirmed by this Authority. Hence, the same was not required to be looked into. (ii) The Projects ROF Aalayas Phase-II, Sector-102, Gurugram , ROF Amaltas, Sector-92, Gurugram ROF ALANTE had been launched in the post-GST era and registration and approval of projects, launching of projects, allotment of units, receipt of payments etc. had taken place post-GST. 10. On the basis of the details outward supply of construction services submitted by the Respondent, the DGAP has observed that the service was supplied in the State of Haryana only. 11. The DGAP has explained that Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 came into play in the event where there was a reduction in the rate of tax or there was an increase in the benefit of input tax credit. In the present case, since the project itself was launched after implementation of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, there was no reduction in rate of tax or benefit of additional Input Tax Credit after their registration in May, 2019. Henc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority. 16. Further, the DGAP has verified that the projects ROF Aalayas Phase-II, Sector 102, Gurugram and ROF Amaltas, Sector-92, Gurugram were registered on 27.05.2019 and ROF ALANTE on 09.12.2019 in Haryana RERA and the first booking in the above projects was started in the month of June, 2019. The DGAP has further found that the projects ROF Aalayas Phase-II, Sector 102, Gurugram , ROF Amaltas, Sector-92, Gurugram and ROF ALANTE had been launched in the post-GST regime and there was no price history of the units sold in the pre-GST regime that could be compared with the post-GST base prices to establish whether there was any profiteering by the Respondent or not. In terms of the provisions of the RERA Act, bookings in the project could not happen till the registration was obtained. Since the registration was obtained for the subject projects post the introduction of Goods and Services Tax only, the provisions of Section 171 dealing with Anti-profiteering could not be made applicable to the said projects in the view of the fact that there was no additional ITC that had been made available to the Respondent, which was relevant for establishing any allegation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
