9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Rate)dated 29.03.2019 and reversed all the ITC available pertaining to the F.Y. 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 from April, 2019 onwards and he had also reversed ITC availed in compliance with Rule 37 of the CGST Rules,2017,due to delay of more than 180 days in making payments to the suppliers for the value of supply along with tax, from the date of issuance of the invoices by the respective suppliers. He had also reversed the excess amount of ITC availed wrongly due to a clerical mistake, which resulted in a negative credit during the post-GST period. Therefore, the Respondent has not retained any ITC related to lreo Waterfront project and reversed all the ineligible ITC pertaining to the F.Y. 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. It can be concluded that pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 (4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 directing the DGAP to expand the scope of the investigation after 31.12.2020 till the issuance of complete Occupation Certificates and collect evidence necessary to determine whether the benefit of input tax credit ( ITC ) had been passed on to the recipients in respect of construction services supplied by the Respondent. iv. Further vide CCI letter dated 07.05.2024, the DGAP was directed to re-investigate the case in view of Para 129 of Hon ble Delhi High Court judgment dated 29.01.2024 as it was pertaining to real estate sector. v. As per the CCI order dated 31.07.2023, the period of the current investigation should have been after 31.12.2020 till the issuance of complete Occupation Certificates. However, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of GST w.e.f.01.07.2017 and if so, (ii) Whether such benefit was passed on by the Respondent to the recipients, in terms of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. ix. The Respondent vide e-mail dated 12.12.2023 submitted that w.e.f. 01.04.2019, he was charging GST @ 5% on services relating to construction of residential projects including apartments, villas floors and therefore he was not availing any ITC on services taken thereto and also reversed all the proportionate ITC as had adopted for the new scheme from 01.04.2019 in terms of Notification No. 03/2019-CT (Rate)dated 29.03.2019. x. The DGAP had ascertained the same from the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, District Ludhiana-III who informed that the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by the Respondent on account of the same being attributable to the construction of the instant project, the time of supply of which was after 01.04.2019. Thus, the Respondent did not retain any ITC and reversed the availed ITC. Post March 2022, no further ITC was availed by the Respondent xii. The Respondent vide email dated 05.07.2024 had submitted month wise details of ITC availed and reversed for the period July 2017 to March 2019 which has been given as under:- Credit Availed and Reversed details as per GSTR3B returns (Monthly-basis Month Credit Availed Credit Reversed Net Credit Availed IGST CGST SGST IGST CGST SGST IGST CGST SGST Jul-17 18,900 8,808 8,808 - - - 18,900 8,808 8,808 Aug-17 15,610 6,427 6,427 -2,056 - - 13,554 6,427 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . xiv. The DGAP has averred that the Respondent vide email dated 23.07.2024 had submitted that the reversal of ITC was made in compliance with Rule 37 of the CGST Rules, 2017, due to delay of more than 180 days in making payments to the respective suppliers for the value of supply along with tax, from the date of issuance of the invoices by the respective suppliers. An excess amount of ITC was reversed due to a clerical mistake. Hence, the net ITC available at the end of the period from July 2017 to March 2019 led to a negative credit of Rs. 7,51,0671/-of IGST, Rs. 6,59,908/-of CGST and Rs. 3,24,770/-of SGST respectively. Further, the Respondent had decided not to re-avail the reversed ITC in any manner in compliance with the Notification N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... teering provisions were not applicable to the impugned project under investigation. xvii. The DGAP has also observed that the construction services have been supplied by the Respondent in the State of Punjab only. 3. This Commission has considered the DGAP s Report dated 29.07.2024 in its meeting held on 19.09.2024 and carefully perused the documents placed on record. The Commission needs to determine as to whether there was any reduction in the GST rate or benefit of ITC and whether the benefit of rate reduction or ITC was passed on or not to the recipients as provided under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. 4. We find that the DGAP has verified the documents submitted by the Respondent as well as the statutory returns filed by him and re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
