liable to higher GST @18% or 28% due to
which additional ITC benefit
BEFORE THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY UNDER
THE CENTRAL GOODS & SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
|Date of Institution||12.02.2019|
|Date of Order||08.05.2019|
I. The present Report dated 27.08.2018, has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods &
Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that vide his application dated 22.01.2018 (Annexure-I of the Report) submitted to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Applicant No. I had alleged
profiteering by the Respondent while he had purchased Flat No. T4-2B in the Anand Vilas Project, Sector-81, Faridabad, Haryana-121006 launched by the Respondent. Initially Sh. Dinesh Kumar Madan, H. No. 86/L, Ward No. 10, New Colony, Palwal, Haryana and Shri Ravi Kumar were jointly allotted this flat which was transferred to the Applicant No. 1, however, the Respondent had not allegedly passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the above Applicant although he had charged GST @ 12% w.e.f. 01.07.2017.
2. The DGAP has stated in his Report that the above Applicant had booked the flat on 09.05.2017 before the GST had come in to force and following demands had been raised on him by the Respondent.
3. The DGAP has also stated that the above Applicant had claimed that the Respondent had completed approximately 60% of the project work using inputs which were liable to higher GST @18% or 28% due to
which additional ITC benefit had accrued to him. The Applicant 1 had also furnished an e-mail dated 28.08.2017 through which he had asked the Respondent why he was not being given the benefit of ITC when GST was being charged from him @12% and vide e-mail dated 28.08.2017, the Respondent had communicated that the benefit of ITC would be calculated at the time of the completion of the project and if due, would be proportionately passed on to the above Applicant. The Applicant No. 1 had also submitted the following documents along with his complaint:-
(a) Duly filled in Form APAF-I
(b) Payment Schedule pre-GST & post-GST
(c) Copy of Tax Invoice post-GST
(d) Copy of Demand Note pre-GST
(e) Statement of GST paid upto 02.01.2018
(f) Copy of receipts of payment
(g) ID proof (Aadhar Card)
(h) Copies of e-mails requesting for passing on the benefit of ITC
(i) Detailed work-sheet
4. The above complaint was considered by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering in its meeting held on 09.02.2018 and was forwarded to the DGAP on 28.02.2018 for investigation whether the benefit of ITC
had been passed on by the Respondent to the above Applicant or not.
5. The DGAP had issued Notice under Rule 129 of the CGST Rules, 2017 on 14.03.2018 (Annexure-2 of the Report) asking the Respondent to intimate whether he admitted that the benefit of ITC had not been passed on to the above Applicant through commensurate reduction in the price of the flat and if so, to suo moto determine the quantum of such benefit and communicate the same
with necessary evidence. An opportunity to inspect the non- confidential evidences/information submitted by the Applicant No. I was also afforded to the Respondent between 21.03.2018 and 23.03.2018 (Annexure-3 of the Report) which he had utilised on 23.03.2018.
6. The DGAP has further stated that the above Applicant vide e-mail dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure-4 of the Report) was given an opportunity to inspect the nonconfidential evidences/replies submitted by the
Respondent between 10.08.2018 to 14.08.2018 however, he through his letter dated 13.08.2018 had informed the DGAP that the matter had been discussed by him with the Respondent and after being fully satisfied with the clarification given by the Respondent he had no grievance left and therefore, his complaint should be treated to have been withdrawn. The DGAP has also submitted that the present investigation had been conducted from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 and
the period for completing the investigation was extended upto 27.08.2018 by this Authority, vide its order dated 15.05.2018, as per the provisions of Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
- The DGAP has further submitted that the Respondent had filed replies to the Notice vide his 27.04.2018, 07.05.2018, 12.06.2018, 20.07.2018, letters dated 28.03.2018, 17.05.2018, 29.05.2018, 25.07.2018, 31.07.2018, 12.04.2018, 07.06.2018, 03.08.2018, 09.08.2018 and 13.08.2018.
- The Respondent has himself admitted that he has passed on the additional ITC benefit of Rs. 1,99,42,985/- in respect to the project “Emerald Bay” and Rs. 53, 19,592/- in respect to the project “Aman
Vilas” being executed by him. Since the above claim of the Respondent is required to be verified the DGAP is directed to investigate the issue of passing on the benefit of additional ITC in respect of the above two projects and submit his Report within a period of 3 months from the receipt of this order in terms of Rule 133 (4) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
- The Authority as per Rule 136 of the CGST Rules 2017 directs the Commissioners of CGST/SGST Haryana to monitor this order under the supervision of the DGAP by ensuring that the amount profiteered by the Respondent as ordered by the Authority is passed on to all the eligible buyers. A report in compliance of this order shall be submitted to this Authority by the Commissioners CGST /SGST within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of this order.
- A copy each of this order be supplied to both the Applicants, the Respondent, Commissioners CGST/SGST as well as the Principal Secretary (Town & Planning), Government of Haryana for necessary action. File be consigned after completion.
(B. N. Sharma)
(J. C. Chauhan)
Subscribes our YouTube channel Abhishek raja ram
Visit our Partner Websites – To view our sites click on given links below:
Wealthmaxi.com – Want to invest in different kinds of mutual fund to earn high return on your investments.
To view GST Articles Click on given Link
To view GST Updates Click on given Link