9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2019, filed by the Applicant No. 1 under Rule 128 of the Rules, alleging profiteering in respect of construction service supplied by the Respondent. The Applicant No. 1 had submitted that she had booked a Flat No. C-701 in the Respondent's project "MJR Clique Hydra" Electronic City Phase-I. Bengaluru and had alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to her by way of commensurate reduction in price. The DGAP has intimated that the Applicant No. 1 had lodged the complaint with the Karnataka State Screening Committee. Thereafter, the above reference was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, in its meeting held on whereby it decided to forward the same to the DGAP to conduct a detailed investigation in the matter. ii. The Applicant No. 1 had submitted the following documents along with her application:- (a) Scanned Copy of proof of Identity. (b) Sale Agreement. (c) Construction Agreement. (d) Break up of cost as given by the Respondent. (e) Demand notes from level foundation to 14th floor, internal plastering and final notes on possession. (f) Payment Schedule given at the time of booking (pre-GST). (g) Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2019, 16.01.2020, 14.02.2019, 26.02.2019, 16.05.2020 and 23.05.2020:- (a) Copies of GSTR-1 returns for the period July, 2017 to September, 2019. (b) Copies of GSTR-3B returns for the period July, 2017 to September, 2019. (e) Copies of Tran-1 filed. (d) Electronic Credit Ledger for the period July, 2017 to September, 2019. (e) Copies of VAT & ST-3 returns for the period April, 2016 to June, 2017. (f) Copies of all demand letters, sale agreement/contract issued in the name of the Applicants. (g) Details of applicable tax rates, pre-GST and post-GST. (h) Copy of Balance Sheet and Cost Audit Report for F.Y. 2016-17, and 2017-18. (i) Details of VAT, Service Tax, ITC of VAT, Cenvat Credit for the period April, 2016 to June, 2017, Output GST and ITC for the period July, 2017 to June, 2019 for the Project "MJR Clique Hydra". (j) Cenvat/Input Tax Credit Ledger for the F.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 reconciled with VAT, ST-3 and GSTR-3B returns. (k) List of home-buyers for the above Project. (l) Project details submitted to RERA. (m) Copy of Completion Certificate (CC) dated 17.12.2018 of the project "MJR Clique Hydra" The DGAP has also informed that the Respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On Completion of Internal Plastering 5% 234993 20 On Registration 5% 234993 TOTAL (A) 100% 46,99,853 OTIIER CHARGES (Approx.). 1 **Registration and stamp Duty 109303 2 *BWSSB and BESCOM charges and deposits 204750 3 Maintenance fee 84240 4 Service tax on Maintenance fee 10412 5 Professional charges 30000 6 Club charges 150000 TOTAL (B) 588705 GRAND TOTAL (A+B) 52,88,558 ix. Para 5 of Schedule-III of the CGST Act, 2017 (Activities or Transactions which should be treated neither as a supply of goods nor a supply of services) reads as "Sale of land and, subject to Clause (b) of paragraph 5 of Schedule II, sale of building". Further, clause (b) of Paragraph 5 of Schedule II of the CGST Act, 2017 read as "(b) construction of a complex, building, civil structure or a part thereof, including a complex or building intended for sale to a buyer, wholly or partly, except where the entire consideration has been received after issuance of the Completion certificate, where required, by the competent authority or after its first occupation. whichever w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... os of ITCs to the turnovers during the pre-GST (April, 2016 to June, 2017) and post-GST (July, 2017 to September, 2019) periods, have been furnished in Table-'B' given below:- Table 'B' (Amount in Rs.) S.No. Particulars (Pre-GST) (Post-GST) 1 Credit of Service Tax Paid on Input Services (A) 70,59,822 2 Input Tax Credit of VAT paid on Inputs (B) 1,07,27,831 3 Total CENVAT/VAT/Input Tax Credit Available (C=A +B) 1,77,87,653 4 Input Tax Credit of GST Availed (D) 3,81,52,051 5 Total Turnover from Residential Area (E) 24,55,62,128 27,98,05,928 6 Total Saleable Area (F) 3,45,690 3,45,690 7 Sold Area relevant to Turnover in sq. Ft. (G) 1,77,000 2,22,040 8 ITC proportionate to Sold Area (H=(C or D)* G/F) 91,07,624 2,45,05,428 9 Ratio of Cenvat/Input Tax Credit to Turnover (I=H/E*100) 3.71% 8.76% xiii. The DGAP has claimed from the above Table- 'B' that the input tax credit as a percentage of the turnover that was available to the Respondent during the pre-GST period (April, 2016 to June, 2017) was 3.71% and during the post-GST period (July, 2017 to September, 2019), it was 8.76% which clearly confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of additional ITC should have been passed on by the Respondent to the recipients. In Other words, by not reducing the pre-GST basic prices by 5.05% on account of additional benefit of ITC and charging GST @ 12% on the pre-GST basic prices, the Respondent has contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. xvi. On the basis of the aforesaid CENVAT/ITC availability in the pre and post-GST periods and the demands raised by the Respondent on the Applicant No. 1 and other home buyers towards the value of construction on which GST liability @ 12% Was discharged by the Respondent during the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019, the amount of benefit of ITC not passed on to the recipients or in other words, the profiteered amount came to Rs.1,07,67,330/- which included GST on the base profiteered amount of Rs.96,13,687/-. The home buyer and unit No. wise break-up of this amount was given in Annexure-13 of the Report. This amount was inclusive or Rs. 1,03,453/- (including GST on the base amount of Rs. 92,369/-) which was the profiteered amount in respect of the Applicant No. 1, mentioned at serial No. 108 of Annexure-13 of the Report. xvii. The above computation of profitee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cipients. The DGAP has also stated that the Respondent has supplied construction services in the State of Karnataka only. The DGAP has further reported that, the present investigation covered the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019 and profiteering, if any, for the period post September, 2019, had not been examined as the exact quantum of ITC that would be available to the Respondent in future could not be determined at this stage, when the construction of the project was yet to be completed. 4. The above Report was considered by this Authority in its meeting held on 04.06.2020 and it was decided that the Applicants and the Respondent be asked to file their submissions before this Authority by 19.06.2020. A Notice dated 04.06.2020 was also issued to the above Respondent asking him to explain why the Report dated 01.06.2020 furnished by the DGAP should not be accepted and his liability for violating the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act should not be fixed. Thereafter, hearing via video conferencing was held on 05.02.2021 wherein Sh. Rajesh Kumar T.R., Chartered Accountant represented the Respondent. However, before the Order could be passed, one of the Technical Members ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of GST in quantum availed by him was additionally paid by him either due to increase in tax rate, or increase in cost of goods and services. Thereby, the Respondent has stated that no additional benefit accrued to him. Accordingly no benefit was passed on. v. The matter relating to constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 171 and Rules made thereunder was pending before Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Respondent has requested that the matter be kept in abeyance till the issue of constitutional validity was decided. vi. The application filed by the Applicant No. 1 was not proper and the Respondent did not accept the fact of any profiteering. Thereby he has requested to dispose of the application as having no merits. vii. The Respondents has objected to the methodology adopted by the DGAP in computing the benefit of input tax credit as it was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017. The Respondent has submitted that Section 171, did not define what was the meaning of the term benefit of Input Tax Credits and in what circumstances and how to compute the same. In the absence of such prescription in law adoption of certain method witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pting the percentage of credit to revenue without considering the expenditure incurred was improper. Example, with total realizable value of Rs.1,000/- and cost of land Rs.400/- and cost of construction Rs. 400/- with 30% cost incurred pre-GST and 70% post-GST was as follows:- Sl. No Details Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 1 ITC Pre-GST Rs.18 Rs.18 Rs.18 2 Revenue accrued/ realized Pre-GST Rs.400 Rs.300 Rs.200 3 % of ITC to Revenue -Pre -GST 4.50% 6.00% 9.00% 4 ITC Post - GST Rs.50 Rs.50 Rs.50 5. Revenue accured /realized Pre-GST Rs.600 Rs.700 Rs.800 6. % of ITC to Revenue - Post - GST 8.33% 7.14% 6.25% 7 Difference in ITC % 3.83% 1.14% -2.75% b) From the above table it could be seen that though the cost and ITC remained same, due to the fact that revenue was varying due to various factors like collection was based on milestone. Further, the buyers paid belatedly even alter completion of the milestone and not exactly on milestone, expenses incurred but milestone not yet achieved etc. Therefore. the percentage of ITC/CENVAT credit to sales was not the proper method of computation of excess credit, if any; c) The input tax credit was dependent upon th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived was not scientific in construction projects; b. Post-GST, the ITC amount should not include RCM taxes paid as it was not payable during pre-GST period which he was made to pay during post-GST period. c. Even in the computation made by the DGAP, the area booked pre-GST was taken as 1,77,000 Sq. Ft. whereas actual Sq. Ft. as per computation was 1,79,890 Sq. Ft. [The area booked pre-GST and area booked post-GST was provided in list of home buyers' list submitted which was taken cognizance at para 11 (k) of the Report. d. Further the computation has taken the Value of revenue received only and not revenue accrued, yet to be received. Since the project was completed in December 2018 the value of amount accrued, yet to be received also should have been added to revenue. The value in Sl. No. 5 of Table B column post-GST would be Rs.29,88,87,857/- instead of Rs.27,98,05,928/-. e. Further, the computation or amount was also made only relating to Construction. There were other taxable amounts received by him in post-GST period, which should be added for the post GST taxable turnover. f. By giving effect to the above points other than point e above the pre-GST credit perce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved in December 2018. 5. Supplementary Reports were sought from the DGAP against the Respondent's submissions dated 21.08.2020 and 04.05.2022. In response, the DGAP vide his replies dated 09.09.2020 and 27.05.2022 respectively has submitted as under:- a) As per the home buyers' list furnished by the Respondent which was relied upon while carrying out the investigation. the actual area sold in pre-GST regime i.e., prior to 01.07.2017 was 1,77,000 sq. ft. only. b) If the Respondent had received supplies from the unregistered suppliers and paid GST under RCM, the Respondent had become eligible to avail ITC of the same which was not available to the Respondent in pre-GST regime which has accrued more benefit of ITC to the Respondent. In pre-GST regime, even if the Respondent was receiving supplies from unregistered suppliers, there was no ITC benefit available to the Respondent. c) In the erstwhile pre-GST regime, various taxes and cesses were being levied by the Central Government and the State Governments, which got subsumed in the GST. Out of these taxes. the ITC of some taxes was not being allowed in the erstwhile tax regime. For example, the ITC of Central Sales Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pass on to a recipient or the profiteered amount. The DGAP has further stated that on the basis of information/data provided by the Respondent, the actual ITC available to the Respondent in pre and post-GST regime and consequently the actual quantum of profiteering or the benefit of additional ITC available to Respondent has been clearly outlined in the Report dated 01.06.2020 of the DGAP. f) "Input Tax" and "ITC" were defined under Section 2(62) and 2(63) respectively in the CGST Act, 2017. However, the additional ITC was the amount of ITC which was available to the Respondent in GST regime in addition to the ITC which was available to him in pre-GST regime. This was because in the erstwhile pre-GST regime, various taxes and cesses were being levied by the Central Government and the State Governments, which got subsumed in the GST. Out of these taxes. the ITC of some taxes was not being allowed in the erstwhile tax regime. With the introduction of GST with effect from 01.07.2017, all these taxes got subsumed in the GST and the ITC of GST became available in respect of all goods and services, unless specifically denied. g) Section 171(1) reads as "Any reduction in rate of tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gal validity of the methodology which was legally correct and not arbitrary. j) Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 was very clear which stated that any reduction in the rate of tax or the benefit of ITC has to be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. Therefore, the said Section 171 only required the supplier to pass on the benefit of reduction in rate of tax or the benefit of ITC to the recipients by reducing the prices commensurately. Both the above benefits have been granted by the Central as well as the State Governments by sacrificing their tax revenue in the public interest and hence the suppliers were not required to pay even a single penny from their own pocket and hence, they have to pass on the above benefits as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Section 171 (1) reads as "Any reduction in rare 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." It was abundantly clear that the legal requirement was that in the event of a benefit of ITC or reduction in rate of tax, there must be a commensurate reduction in prices of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n taxes had no direct nexus with the output turnover but the credit so availed was for payment of tax on behalf of the buyers and additional benefit whatsoever accrued would have to be passed to the flat buyers. Hence, the methodology on the basis or the cost adopted by the Respondent in this regard could not be accepted as it was not based on correct interpretation of the above provisions of Section 171. The DGAP has further argued that the illustrations given by the Respondent were purely based on the assumption which has got nothing to do with the filets of the case. The additional benefit of the ITC accrued to the Respondent was determined only on the basis of the facts of the present case. The DGAP has also mentioned that the additional benefit the ITC accrued at any given point of time was associated with the whole project whereas the benefit of ITC required to be passed on in terms of Section 171 would be computed proportionate with the area sold and the actual amount to be passed on to each home buyer can only be determined by factoring the demand raised from the home buyers or advance received from them. Thus, the turnover considered for the computation of the profiteering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted the Report on his findings to this Authority. Thus, the DGAP has claimed that the percentage of the ITC to the relevant turnover was proper and justified. o) The Respondent was collecting the amounts in the form of cash from his customers which included the basic price as well as tax (GST) amount, Now, the GST charged by the Respondent from his customers was to be deposited with the Government exchequer. But this amount of tax was being paid by the Respondent by utilizing the ITC and not in the form of cash. Hence, the amount collected from the customers in the form or cash in lieu of GST was being retained by the Respondent. The has also stated that the ITC being utilized by the Respondent for the payment of GST to the Government exchequer was the ITC which was not available to him in pre-GST regime. Hence the Respondent has benefitted with this additional ITC in post-GST regime which was required to be passed on to the recipients/customers in terms of Section 171 (I) of the CGST Act. 2017. Moreover, any increase in tax component was charged to and collected from customers, whereas any increase in the quantum of ITC might be pocketed. p) Under the provisions of Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Besides. any extra tax returned to the recipients by the supplier by issuing credit notes can be declared in the return filed by such supplier and his tax liability shall stand adjusted to that extent in terms of Section 34 of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the option was always open to the Respondent to return the tax amount to the recipients by issuing credit notes and adjust his tax liability for the subsequent period to that extent. t) Though the Respondent received the completion certificate for the present project on 17.12.2018, but the Respondent was raising demands from the home buyers even after receipt of the Completion certificate. Therefore, vide Para 26 of the Report dated 01.06.2020 the DGAP has submitted that any amounts which were to be received after September. 2019 i.e. from October, 2019 onwards, had not been considered as the investigation period covered under the above Report was from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019 only. The DGAP has also stated that the additional benefit accrued to the Respondent has been clearly outlined in the Report dated 01.06.2020. u) Vide his supplementary reports dated 01.12.2020 and 27.05.2022 the DGAP has additionally submitted that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has also reduced as evident from the rate of taxes applicable in the pre and post-GST period as under:- Pre-GST Tax Rate Abatement Net Effective Rate Service Tax 15% 60% 6% State VAT 14.5% 30% 10.15% Total 16.15% Post-GST Tax Rate Abatement Net Effective Rate Central GST 9% 33.33% 6% State GST 9% 33.33% 6% Total 12% x) As per the statutory returns filed by the Respondent in pre and post GST periods, the payment of taxes made by the Respondent in pre and post GST periods was as under:- i. Pre-GST:- As per the Service Tax returns filed by the Respondent for the period 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017, the total Service Tax payable was Rs. 5.85 Cr., out of which the Respondent paid Service Tax of Rs. 2.20 Cr. through cash which was 38% (approx.) or the total ST payable whereas the Respondent paid ST of Rs. 2.69 Cr. through CENVAT Credit which was 46% (approx.) of the total ST payable. ii. Post-GST:- As per the GSTR-3B filed by the Respondent for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019, the total GST payable was Rs. 9.46 Cr., out which the Respondent paid GST of Rs.0.39 Cr. through cash which was 4% (approx.) of the total CGST p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DGAP has further stated that, in terms of Section 76(10), if any surplus amount of tax was left after the adjustment under sub-section (9). that amount would either be credited to the Fund or refunded to the person who has borne the incidence of such amount. Hence, the provisions of Section 76(10) were applicable with the provisions or sub-section (9) of the Section 76 of the CGST Act, 2017 only which were not applicable in the present case. 6. The Authority has carefully considered the Reports of the DGAP, submissions made by the Respondent including during the personal hearing and the case record and the Authority observe that the Respondent is in the real-estate business and has been developing his project "MJR Clique Hydra" in Bengaluru. It is on record that Applicant No. 1 had filed a complaint alleging that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of ITC to her by way of a commensurate reduction in the price of the flat purchased by her (Applicant No. 1) from the Respondent. We find that the DGAP, after a detailed investigation, has found that the Respondent has not passed on ITC benefit amounting to Rs.1.07,67,330/- (inclusive of GST) to his recipients/homebuyers as req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the recipient by way or commensurate reduction in prices." (c) It is apparent from the plain reading of the above provision that it mentions "reduction in the rate of tax or benefit of ITC" which means that if any reduction in the rate of tax is ordered by the Central and the State Governments or a registered supplier avails benefit of additional ITC post GST implementation, the same have to be passed on by him to his recipients since both the above benefits are being given by the above Governments out of their scarce and precious tax revenue. It also provides that the above benefits arc to be passed on any supply i.e. on each product or unit of construction or service to every buyer and in case they are not passed on, the quantum of denial these benefits or the profiteered amount has to be computed for which investigation has to be conducted in respect of all such products/units/services by the DGAP. What would be the 'profiteered amount' has been clearly defined in the explanation attached to Section 171. (d) These benefits can also not be passed on at the entity / Organisation / branch/ invoice/ business vertical level as they have to be passed on to each and every ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o fixed mathematical formula, in respect of all the Sectors or the products or the services, can be set passing on the above benefits or for computation of the profiteered amount, as the facts of each case are different. (k) In the case of one real estate project, date of Start and completion of the project, price of the flat/shop, mode of payment of price or instalments, Stage of completion of the project. rates of taxes pre and post GST implementation, amount of CENVAT credit and ITC available, total saleable area, area sold and the taxable turnover received before and after the GST implementation would always be different from 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 the other project. Therefore, no set procedure or mathematical methodology can be framed for determining the benefit of additional ITC which has to be passed on to the buyers of the units. (l) Moreover, this Authority under Rule 126 has been empowered to 'determine' Methodology & Procedure and not to 'prescribe' it. Similarly. the facts of the cases relating to the sectors of Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG), re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsumers who bear the burden of tax. (b) The intent of this provision is the welfare of the Consumers who are voiceless, unorganised and vulnerable. This Authority is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the both the above benefits are passed on to the general public as per the provisions of Section 171 read with Rule 127 and 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017. Hence, the anti-profiteering related Rules and Section 171 of the Act have express approval of the Parliament, all the State Legislatures, the Central and all the State Governments and the GST Council and therefore, Section 171 and the Rules are constitutional and are not violative of Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. This Authority has nowhere interfered with the business decisions of the Respondent. (c) The Respondent has also contended that 'Profiteering' has not been defined in the CGST Act or the Rules therefore, he has cited the definitions of "Profiteer/Profiteering" from Black's Law Dictionary. Law Lexicon and Shorter Oxford Dictionary in his support. However, the Authority finds that the word "profiteered" has been duly defined in the Explanation attached to Section 171 of the above Act as u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he increase in input credit was due to increase in the tax rate paid on the goods and services received. Earlier, Service Tax was 15% whereas GST is 18%. The rate of GST on Works Contract is 18% whereas earlier VAT and Service Tax Was around 14 to 15%. Therefore, increase in credit was also due to increase in tax rate and it could not be considered to be any benefit. The Authority finds no merit in this argument. The Respondent has not been compelled to pay more GST on services of 18% when Service Tax in the pre-GST period was 15%, as not even a single rupee of tax was being paid in the pre-GST regime or in the post-GST regime by him from his own pocket, as he period and was embedding those taxes on which ITC was not available like the Central Excise Duty in his cost of the flat and realizing it from his customers. The is also, now, getting full ITC of all the taxes paid by him on his purchase of goods and services in the post GST period and is also Charging GST from his buyers. 13. The Respondent has contended that he had availed the Input Tax Credit of Rs.3,81,52,051/- during post GST period which included ITC of Rs.35,26,800/- relating to unregistered supplies paid under Rever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16. The Respondent has referred to Table-C of the DGAP's Report and submitted that the amount at Sl. No. 6 included the value which was pre-GST, post-GST and also post obtaining completion certificate. The has also stated that Sl. No. 7 has only reduced the flats which were booked after completion certificate. It is the Respondent's claim that, the flats booked post-GST were not affected by anti-profiteering provision since the price would be based on market consideration prevailing during that point of time and also taking into consideration the revised costs of the project net of GST credits. This Authority has considered this submission and finds no merit in it. This Authority finds that, the amount pertaining to the flats booked post GST prior to obtaining completion certificate, were required to be considered as such home buyers were also eligible to get their due benefit of the ITC the Respondent. The amount at Sl. No. 6 of the Table-C of the DGAP's Report was amount raised in post-GST period only which was exclusive of amounts pertaining to the pre-GST period. However, the amounts pertaining to the flats booked after obtaining completion certificate did not attr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to his buyers, the value of land would have been excluded from the preview of profiteering. Therefore, the Authority finds that the facts or the cases relied upon by the Respondent are different from the present case. Hence. the Authority finds that this contention of the Respondent regarding exclusion of land value being untenable cannot be accepted. 19. Hence, as per our findings above, the Authority finds no reason to differ from the above detailed Computation of profiteering in the DGAP's Report or the methodology adopted. Hence, the Authority holds that, the as a percentage of the turnover that was available to the Respondent during the pre-GST period (April-2016 to June-2017) was 3.71 % and during the post-GST period (July-2017 to September-2019), it was 8.76%. This confirms that. post-GST, the Respondent has been benefited from additional ITC to the tune 5.05% (8.76%-3.71%) of his turnover and the same was required to be passed on to the customers/flat buyers/recipients. The DGAP has calculated the amount of ITC benefit to be passed on to all the customers/ flat buyers/ recipients as Rs.1,07,67,330/- for the project 'MJR Clique Hydra' which was availed by the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nefit of ITC to be passed on to each of them (along with interest @ 18% as prescribed), is attached with this order as Annexure-A. 25. The Authority also order that the profiteered amount of Rs. Rs.1,07,67,330/- for the project 'MJR Clique Hydra', along with the interest @ from the date of receiving of the profiteered amount from the customers/ flat buyers/ recipients till the date of passing the benefit of ITC, Shall be paid/passed on by the Respondent within a period of 3 months from the date of this order failing which it shall be recovered as per the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. 26. It is also evident from the above narration of facts that the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the customers/ flat buyers/ recipients in his project 'MJR Clique Hydra' in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has committed an offence under Section 171 (3A) of the above Act. However, perusal of the provisions of Section 171 (3A), under which liability for penalty arises for the above violation, shows that it has been inserted in the CGST Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.01.2020 vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 and it was not in operation during the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al language with the details i.e. Name of builder (Respondent) M/s MJR Builders Pvt. Ltd., Project- "MJR Clique Hydra", Location- Bengaluru, Karnataka and profiteered amount of Rs. Rs.1,07,67,330/- so that the concerned customers/ flat buyers/ recipients can claim the benefit of ITC if not passed on. Customers/ flat buyers/ recipients may also be informed that the detailed NAA Order is available on Authority's website www.naa.gov.in. Contact details of concerned Jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner responsible for compliance of the NAA's order may also be advertised through the said advertisement. 29. The concerned jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner shall also submit a Report regarding compliance of this order to the Authority and the DGAP within a period of 4 months from the date of this Order. 30. The DGAP is also directed to monitor the compliance of the order by the concerned jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner. 31. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Vide its Order dated 23.03.2020 in Suo moto writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, while taking suo moto cognizance of the situation arising on account of Covid-19 pandemic, has extended the period of limitation prescr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
