9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rect. The Commission observes that the instant case does not fall under the ambit of Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as the Respondent has neither been benefited from additional ITC nor there has been a reduction in the tax rate in the post-GST period - the application filed by the Applicant No. 1 requesting action against the Respondent for charging GST @ 18% on PLC is not maintainable and hence the same is dismissed. - SMT. RAVNEET KAUR, CHAIRPERSON. SH. ANIL AGRAWAL, MEMBER. MS. SWETA KAKKAD, MEMBER. AND SH. DEEPAK ANURAG, MEMBER. Present :- 1. For the Applicant No. 1 2 : None. 2. for the Respondent : Sh. Ranjan Sardana, Advocate. ORDER 1. The present Report dated 01.03.2021 has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed re-investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 pursuant to Interim Order No 38/2020 dated 11.12.2020 passed by the erstwhile National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) in respect of the investigation report of DGAP dated 31.08.2020. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is clear that post-GST, the Respondent has not been benefited from any additional ITC and in fact, the ITC availed by the Respondent post introduction of GST was lower by 0.71% [26.85% (-) 26.14%] of the turnover as compared to the pre-GST period. Thus, there was no additional benefit of ITC, on implementation of GST w.e.f. 01,07.2017 and hence, the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 were not attracted. d. Further, the Applicant No. 1 had purchased the flat from the Respondent after issue of the Occupancy Certificate of the project The Sky Court . Since there was no additional benefit of ITC in post-GST period, no profiteering could have been established in the case of Applicant No. 1 in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. 3. In pursuance to the above Report of the DGAP dated 31.08.2020, the NAA, had observed certain discrepancies in the DGAP's Report dated 31.08.2020 and accordingly referred back the matter to the DGAP and ordered reinvestigation in the matter in terms of Rule 133 (4) of CGST Rules, 2017 on the following grounds:- a. As per Report of the DGAP, the Respondent has received the Completion Certificate on 17.07.2017. Hence, the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of ITC (01.07.2017 to 16.07.2017) and huge amount of ITC available to the Respondent in post GST-regime (17.07.2017 to 31.07.2019) would escape from the computation which would be incorrect and leaving such ITC would not serve the purpose of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Hence, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and in the interest of justice to the recipient's/home buyers, the ITC was taken for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.07.2019 which was correct. f. Thus, there appeared no need to re-compute the ratio of ITC to turnover w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 16.07.2017 and the investigation conducted for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.07.2019 was correct. Therefore, the Report dated 31.08.2020 submitted by the DGAP under Rule 129(6) is correct and might be accepted. 5. The above report of the DGAP dated 01.03.2021 was considered by the erstwhile NAA in its meeting held on 04.03.2021 and it was decided to allow the Respondent and the Applicant No. 1 to file their consolidated written submissions in respect of the above report of the DGAP. Notice dated 09.03.2021 was also issued to Respondent directing him to explain why the above Report furnished by the DGAP should not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad alleged that sale of flats after issuance of Completion Certificate did not attract GST and that the Respondent had charged GST @18% on the Preferential Location Charges (PLC). b. The DGAP had filed his report dated 31.08.2020 stating that post-GST, the Respondent has not been benefited from any additional ITC and in fact, the ITC availed by the Respondent post introduction of GST was lower by 0.71% [26.85% (-) 26.14%] of the turnover as compared to the pre-GST period. c. The DGAP has re-investigated the matter as per the directions given vide I.O. No. 38/2020 dated 11.12.2020 and vide his Report dated 01.03.2021 has reported that if the investigation was restricted up to 16.07.2017 i.e. upto the date of receipt of Completion Certificate, then the ITC availed by the Respondent after receipt of Completion Certificate would escape from the computation which would be incorrect. Therefore, the investigation has been carried out up to 31.07.2019. 11. In view of the above report of the DGAP, the Commission finds that if the amount of ITC availed/available to the Respondent in post-GST regime is considered up to 16.07.2017, then it would be very meagre amount of ITC (01.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
