9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted in this case and there is no requirement of any commensurate reduction in the prices of the units in the said project by the Respondent. Applicant No. 1 could have availed the above benefit only if the above project was under execution/implementation before the date of GST implementation viz., 01.7.2017. Hence, the allegations made by the Applicant No. 1 are incorrect and therefore, the same cannot be accepted. The Commission finds that the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted in the Respondent s project Godrej Elements . Therefore, the proceedings in the present case are hereby dropped. - SMT. RAVNEET KAUR, CHAIRPERSON, DR. SANGEETA VERMA, MEMBE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t are summed up as follows: (a) The Respondent is real estate developer engaged primarily in the business of real estate construction, development and other related activities. One of the projects undertaken by the Respondent in the state of Maharashtra is Godrej Elements . (b) The Respondent had submitted that the project Godrej Elements shall be outside the scope of provision of Section 171 of CGST Act since the said project was launched in June, 2018 viz., post GST regime. Accordingly, in his view, the investigation proceedings were required to be dropped. The Respondent had submitted the following documentary evidences: - i. Commencement Certificate for the project Godrej Elements . ii. RERA Certificate for the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in this project was on 22.06.2018 i.e. in post-GST period. The Respondent had submitted the Application Form dated 22.06.2018 of Mr. Vipin Panday, as the first buyer of the Flat No. K2B0803. Further, on scrutiny of the documents submitted by the Respondent viz. first tax invoice for demand cum allotment letter, demand letter of the Applicant No. 1 and other documents, it was also observed that the project Godrej Elements had started in the post-GST era. The Applicant No. 1 did not produce any evidence to prove otherwise. There was no unit sold in the pre-GST era which could be compared with the post-GST base price to determine whether there was any profiteering. c) The Respondent had received Development Permission and Certificate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... post-GST turnover and input tax credit, to determine whether there was any benefit that was required to be passed on by way of commensurate reduction in price. ix. On the basis of the details of outward supply of Construction services submitted by the Respondent, it was also observed that the service has been supplied in the State of Maharashtra only. x. In view of the aforementioned findings, it was concluded that the project was launched in post-GST regime and there were no demands in the pre-GST era to compare with the turnover in post-GST era. No demand was raised nor was any payment received during pre-GST period. Also, the first booking was done on 22.06.2018 in the post-GST period. Therefore, provisions of Section 171 (1) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m to the Applicant? II. Whether there was any violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 by the Respondent? 5. The Applicant No. 1 has neither made any submissions against the DGAP s Report dated 28.03.2022 nor appeared for the personal hearings regardless of the fact that plethora of opportunities were accorded to him. 6. On perusal of records available, the Commission finds that the complaint of profiteering was in respect of the purchase of unit in the Respondent s project Godrej Elements , Pune, Maharashtra by Applicant No. 1. The Project was launched in June, 2018 i.e. post-GST implementation. All the recipients had booked their units after the introduction of GST. The Maharashtra RERA registratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Project to the Respondent, which he is obliged to pass on to his buyers. Hence, the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted in this case and there is no requirement of any commensurate reduction in the prices of the units in the said project by the Respondent. Applicant No. 1 could have availed the above benefit only if the above project was under execution/implementation before the date of GST implementation viz., 01.7.2017. Hence, the allegations made by the Applicant No. 1 are incorrect and therefore, the same cannot be accepted. 9. Based on the above facts the Commission finds that the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted in the Respondent s project Godrej Elements . T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
