GST FLASH

GST - Buy one get one free - Tax rate to depend on whether it is composite or mixed supply and ITC to be available + Free samples & gifts by pharma companies not taxable but ITC not allowed + CBIC also clarifies on Buy more, save more and Secondary Discounts

 

GST NEWS

GST - Higher exemption limit, Composition Scheme for Service Providers notified

GST - Total refund till date is Rs 84K Crore; FM releases Compendium of Instructions

GST - Feb collections down from Jan, 2019 but up by 13%

 

CGST RULES NOTIFICATION

14/2019

Seeks to supersede notification No. 08/2017 - Central Tax dated 27.06.2017 in order to extend the limit of threshold of aggregate turnover for availing Composition Scheme u/s 10 of the CGST Act, 2017 to Rs. 1.5 crores.

13/2019

Seeks to prescribe the due dates for furnishing of FORM GSTR-3B for the months of April, May and June, 2019.

12/2019

Seeks to prescribe the due dates for furnishing of FORM GSTR-1 for those taxpayers with aggregate turnover of more than Rs. 1.5 crores for the months of April, May and June, 2019.

11/2019

Seeks to prescribe the due dates for furnishing of FORM GSTR-1 for those taxpayers with aggregate turnover upto Rs. 1.5 crores for the months of April, May and June, 2019.

10/2019

To give exemption from registration for any person engaged in exclusive supply of goods and whose aggregate turnover in the financial year does not exceed Rs 40 lakhs.

CGST CIRCULAR

93/2019

Nature of Supply of Priority Sector Lending Certificates (PSLC)

92/2019

Circular clarifying various doubts related to treatment of sales promotion scheme under GST and Corrigendum to Circular No. 76/50/2018-GST issued.

REMOVAL OF DIFFICULTIES ORDER

ROD-03/2019

To remove difficulty in implementation of Notification No. 2/2019- Central Tax (Rate)

 

UTGST RATE NOTIFICATION

02/2019

To give composition scheme for supplier of services with a tax rate of 6% having annual turn over in preceding year upto Rs 50 lakhs

UTGST REMOVAL OF DIFFICULTIES ORDER

ROD-02/2019

To remove difficulty in implementation of Notification No. 2/2019- Union Territory Tax (Rate)

 

DRAFT FORMS

Return Formats Sahaj Return – FORM GST RET-2) (Quarterly) including amendment)

Return Formats (Sugam Return – FORM GST RET-3) (Quarterly) (including amendment)

Return Formats (Monthly/Quarterly (Normal) Return - FORM GST RET-1) (including amendment)

 

GST - CONCEPT & STATUS

GST CONCEPT & STATUS as on 1st March, 2019

 

GST CASES

GST AAAR CASES

2019-TIOL-09-AAAR-GST

Jotun India Pvt Ltd

GST - AAR had held that "Marine Paint" is not a component part of a Ship (Chapter 89); that it would be stretching the definition of 'part' greatly if contention of the applicant is accepted for classification under Sl. No. 252 of Schedule I of Notification 1/2017-CTR - appeal filed.

Held: Observation of AAR that 'marine paints' are in no way an integral piece of a ship which would in any way form the whole ship is agreed with - Paint is a commodity capable of many uses - Marine paints may be used to make a ship durable and increase the life of a ship but that does not mean that it is an integral part of the ship - A ship can very well sail on waters without paint and at the most the corrosion will happen earlier than ideally required but it will be farfetched to say that the ship would be unable to sail without it - A 'marine paint' adds to the life, convenience and efficiency but it is certainly not a part of it - Marine paints may be mandatory requirement for the sail worthiness of the ship but that does not indicate that they are parts of the ship - mandatory requirement under some other law cannot be an adequate ground for classifying a product as a 'part' - Order of AAR upheld and appeal dismissed: AAAR

- Appeal dismissed :APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

2019-TIOL-08-AAAR-GST

Taraltec Solutions Pvt Ltd

GST - Appellant is a manufacturer of Reactor, which is a part of Handpump used in villages to extract water from below the earth surface - Authority for Advance Ruling held that Reactors are classifiable under TSH 8421 2190 and attract @18% GST - appeal before AAAR.

Held: Classification under GST is not governed by the fact that the product is for poor masses of rural India located in villages and that their product has acclaimed honour from various State governments and also from the Prime Minister's office being an innovative product - appellant themselves have submitted that their product can also be retro fitted with the motorized water lines for the purpose of purifying water and eliminating the microbes present in the water, therefore, their claim that the product Reactor is designed only for fitment with handpump is controvertible and self-contradicting - contention of appellant that the goods are classifiable under SH 8413 91 as 'Handpump and parts thereof' is not tenable - Reactor is rightly classifiable under heading 8421 2190 as 'filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus for liquids' as held by AAR - Appeal is, therefore, dismissed: AAAR

- Appeal dismissed :APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

2019-TIOL-07-AAAR-GST

Nash Industries India Pvt Ltd

GST - AAR had held that in view of section 15(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, the amortised cost of tools which are re-supplied back to the applicant free of cost shall be added to the value of the components while calculating the value of the components supplied - appeal filed.

Held: There is no dispute that the appellant and their customers are not related parties - On going through the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the appellant and Daimler India Commercial Vehicles P Ltd. (DICV) it is evident that the appellant is required to use DICV owned tools concerning the part to be manufactured with the tool - applicable GST on the supply of the tool is levied in the invoice raised by appellant - once the agreed cost of the tool developed and manufactured by the appellant under a specific purchase order has been paid by DCIV, the title of the tool and all IPR created in the course of development of the tool will be transferred to DICV - since the value of the tools, in the present case, has already suffered tax and supplied Free of Cost (FOC) basis to the appellant, the same is not required to be added to the value of the components supplied by the appellant - AAR ruling is set aside and it is held that the cost of the tools supplied by the OEM customer on FOC basis to the appellant is not requird to be added to the value of the components supplied by the appellant - appeal allowed: AAAR

- Appeal allowed :APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

 

GST AAR CASES

2019-TIOL-66-AAR-GST

GST - Applicant is in the business of issuance and operation of pre-paid payment instruments (mobile wallet and pre-paid card) as per RBI guidelines - applicant has entered into an agreement with Federal Bank and is issuing pre-paid payment instruments as Business Correspondent of Federal Bank - Applicant seeks a ruling on whether the portion of the Merchant Discount Rate received by the issuing bank as ‘Interchange fee' is liable to tax under the GST Act and also as to why different practices prevails by the network in the industry.

Held: Merchant Discount rate is the rate charged by acquiring bank from merchant on every card transaction - this MDR is as per agreement between acquiring bank and merchant establishment - from the transaction, it is clear that the applicant is neither the supplier nor a recipient and the questions raised are not in relation to supply of goods or services or both, being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant - by virtue of s.95 of the Act, applicant cannot make an application before the AAR - as regards the second question, the same is not on matters specified in s.97(2) of the Act and as such is inadmissible - Application rejected as not maintainable: AAR

- Application rejected : AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

2019-TIOL-65-AAR-GST

GST - Applicant is not the supplier of services but he is the recipient of services from their supplier who provided leased circuit facility to the applicant and as such by virtue of s.95 is not an 'applicant' who can obtain advance ruling unless the recipient is paying the taxes under reverse charge mechanism on the transaction of receipt of supply - application rejected u/s 98(2) of the Act: AAR

2019-TIOL-64-AAR-GST

GST - Applicant is supplier of manpower services to highly technical industries such as Oil & Gas, Power etc. – Applicant NES India and NES Abu Dhabi have proposed to enter into a Master service agreement through which NES India will provide support service in respect of the foreign business carried on by NES Abu Dhabi – Applicant seeks to know as to whether the transaction in question is a Zero Rated supply or a Normal Supply under the GST Act and if the supply is a Zero Rated supply whether the same can be considered as export of service under the GST Act.

Held: Transaction covered under the MSA between the applicant and NES Abu Dhabi is a Zero rated supply and is to be considered as an export of service under the GST Act: AAR

2019-TIOL-63-AAR-GST

GST - Engine manufactured and supplied solely and principally for use in railways/locomotives are classifiable under HSN heading 8408: AAR

Availment of ITC on common input supplies on behalf of other units registered as distinct persons and further allocation of the cost incurred for same to such other units qualifies as supply and attracts GST – Assessable value can be determined by following the provisions of rule 30 of the CGST Rules, 2017 – Applicant is required to get registered as an ISD: AAR

2019-TIOL-62-AAR-GST

GST - Applicant is engaged in the manufacture of diesel and natural gas engines and also executes Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) with end customers for which a fixed charge is levied based on the nature of maintenance activity that is required - Applicant seeks determination of GST liability by deciding principal supply of the composite supply qua maintenance contracts executed between the customer and the applicant.

Held: Since the supply of maintenance service is for a single price with supply of spare parts/goods as and when required, the supply of both, goods and services are made in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business and, therefore, supply of services/goods in the present case is naturally bundled, with supply of goods being incidental to the supply of services and, therefore, such contracts are to be considered as a composite supply of service where the principal supply is service and the supply of goods is incidental to such supply of service: AAR

2019-TIOL-61-AAR-GST

GST - Applicant has been selected by the Government of Maharashtra (GOM) as the successful bidder and issued letter of intent for setting up a comprehensive CCTV based city surveillance for Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad – applicant seeks a ruling as to whether the amount received for supply of services during the post GST period to the GOM as per contract is taxable under the CGST/SGST Act and if so, the rate of tax. Held: The contract is not related to any 'Original work' as defined in the CPWD Works Manual, 2014 and is in the nature of composite supply of Works Contract, hence they will be covered under Sr.no. 3 (ii) of Notification 11/2017-CTR as amended and will attract GST @18%: AAR

- Application disposed of : AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

2019-TIOL-58-AAR-GST

The Kreations Builders And Devlopers

GST - Application for Advance Ruling - It is mandatory as per section 97(1) read with rule 104 of the CGST/MGST Act/Rules and as clarified under Circular 25/25/2017-GST dated 21.12.2017 to pay the applicable fee of Rs.5000/- each under CGST and SGST - If not done, the application would be treated as an incomplete application liable for rejection - Applicant has deposited only a fee of Rs.5000/- and not the full amount - during the preliminary hearing held on 28.11.2018, applicant was informed about the short payment and was directed to make up for the deficiency and also reframe the questions as per s.97 as the questions raised were not pertaining to applicant as required u/s 95 - applicant was also contacted on 14.01.2019 seeking compliance of the directions but no response was received till 16.01.2019, therefore, application is taken up for decision on available records.

Held: Since there is a shortfall in the application fee required to be paid, application is incomplete and liable for rejection - Application dated 11.10.2018 rejected as not maintainable.: AAR

- Application rejected : AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

 

GST HIGH COURT CASES

2019-TIOL-530-HC-MAD-GST

Asean Aromatics Pvt Ltd Vs ACGST

GST - Petitioner challenges the order dated 08.11.2018 cancelling his registration for non-filing of returns, on the ground that GSTR 3B returns have been filed upto December 2017 and GSTR-1 only UPTO August 2018.

Held: Overall impression that is obtained is that the authorities, both the Centre and State have taken into consideration the fact that the Goods and Services Tax is nascent in its application and is an evolving regime; that the interests of the small traders have thus weighed with the authorities in granting the relaxation in time limits - Bench is inclined to direct the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, to consider and pass orders upon the application of the petitioner dated 18.12.2018 wherein the petitioner seeks leave to pay pending GST dues in six (6) monthly instalments, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- having been paid as first instalment on 14.12.2018 - Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes should bear in mind the technical difficulties faced by the assessee, the fact that the petitioner has not engaged in any business transactions, on account of the cancellation of registration, for the last four (4) months as well as relevant circulars issued by the authorities till date, in disposing the application - petitioner will appear before the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial taxes on 04.03.2019 and orders to be passed within two weeks thereafter - Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 7 to 9]

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-507-HC-KERALA-GST

Vision Motors Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Correct valuation methodology for ascertainment of GST on Tax collected at source (TCS) under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Petitioners seeking stay of the operation of Sl. No. 5 of the clarification issued vide Circular 76/50/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018 pending disposal of the writ petition.

Held: Section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017 speaks of the value of goods and services besides defining how the value of supply shall be reckoned - It says that the value of supply of goods or services or both shall be the transaction value, which is the price actually paid or payable for the said supply where the supplier and the recipient of supply are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the supply - further section 15(2) mandates that the supply shall include any taxes, duties, cesses, fees and charges levied under any other law in force - as rightly contended by the petitioner, section 15(2)(a) is expansive - petitioner has further submitted that the amount of 1% the dealer collects from the purchaser of a car worth more than ten lakhs u/s 206C(1F) of the IT Act cannot be treated as an integral part of the value of the goods and services supplied by the petitioner; that the dealer acts only as an agent for the State to collect the Income tax and which will eventually go to the vehicle purchaser's credit - petitioner has raised a prima facie issue which needs court's attention - Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Kumar & Co.- 2018-TIOL-302-SC-CUS-CB has held that any ambiguity in taxing provision should be resolved in the State's favour - to conclude either way it needs further and deeper adjudication - authority will, therefore, not act on the clarification at sr. no. 5 pending disposal of the Writ petition - it is clarified that this arrangement shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition and without prejudice to the rights of the department in collecting the taxes in future if the writ outcome is adverse to the petitioner: HC [para 5, 6]

- Interim order : KERALA HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-521-HC-ALL-GST

Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST -  Section 109 of the  CGST Act, 2017  - Constitution of Appellate Tribunal –As the Counsel for GST council as well as that for the State were unable to tell as to whether the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted or not, the matter was listed on 28 February 2019 – Two affidavits were filed but it is apparent that promises were being made only in the air; that there seems to be no concrete proposal to set up the Appellate Tribunal; that from the affidavit filed by the State it appears that recommendation has been made to set up a Bench of the Tribunal in Lucknow, which is not in accordance with the apex court ruling in Madras Bar Association - 2014-TIOL-82-SC-MISC-CB which provides that the Tribunal shall be set up at the place where the Principal Bench of the High Court is situated; that since the Principal Bench of the High Court is situated at Allahabad, the said proposal also seems to be another dilatory tactic - On the one hand, the right of appeal is not being given to the petitioner, on the other hand the State and the Centre are both very quick to make recoveries from persons, who have orders against them - A litigant cannot be left without a remedy for reasons that the Government is unable to provide forums – directions given to both the Centre and the State Governments to file better affidavits giving a cut off date by which they propose to set up the Tribunal – Matter posted on 15th March 2019 : High Court

- Matter posted : ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 

 

GST NAA CASES

2019-TIOL-15-NAA-GST

Director General Anti-Profiteering Vs Abbott Healthcare Pvt Ltd

GST - Anti-profiteering - Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Allegation is that the respondent has not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax as he had increased the MRP of 'Melaglow Rich (Niacinamide) Depigmentation & Glow Restoration Cream' from Rs.365/- to Rs.415/- per unit post implementation of GST; that on the label, MRP was mentioned as Rs.365/- per unit, however, another pasted sticker on the label indicated that the “MRP post GST” was Rs.415/- per unit i.e. an increase of Rs.50/- per unit - Applicant alleges that the respondent had indulged in profiteering in contravention of s.171 of the Act and appropriate action should be taken - DGAP in its report has stated that that the total tax incidence on the product was 30.06% in the pre-GST period which was reduced to 28% w.e.f 01.07.2017 and later @18% w.e.f 15.11.2017, however, the average base price (excluding taxes) of the product of respondent 1 (M/s Abbott Healthcare) was Rs.202.06 which was increased to Rs.230.90 (during 01.07.2017 to 31.07.2018) and thus it was clear that the MRP had been increased by respondent 1 and respondents 2 & 3 were not responsible for profiteering; that by increasing the base price of the product and also by increasing the cum-tax price charged from the recipients post GST the benefit of GST rate reduction was not passed on to the customers; that, therefore, during the period between 01.07.2017 to 31.07.2018, the DGAP concluded that in the respect of the impugned product the amount of profiteering comes to Rs.96,59,716.26.

Held: It is clear from a plain reading of the provisions of s.171 of the Act that any reduction in the rate of tax should result in commensurate reduction in the price w.e.f 01.07.2017 so that there is no profiteering by the suppliers at the expense of the consumers - It is also clear from section 174 of the CGST Act and s. 173 of the SGST Act that the Central and State Acts which imposed CED, CST as well as VAT have been repealed and the above duty/taxes have been subsumed in the GST and the new rates of GST have been fixed near to the net incidence of the above three taxes which were in force before coming into effect of GST - in case the net effect of the above taxes was more than the rate of GST fixed on 01.07.2017, the same would have to be construed as reduction in the rate of tax as per the provisions of s.171(1) of the Act and the consequent benefit in the shape of commensurate reduction in the price has to be passed on, otherwise it would result in earning undue profit by supplier - the term 'rate of tax' used in s.171(1) has a much wider scope and, therefore, cannot be restricted only to the GST rate reduction - any benefit of reduction in the rate of tax given by the government by sacrificing their own revenue must be passed on to the customers by commensurate reduction in the prices by the suppliers and any other interpretation would be illogical and unreasonable - respondent is trying to mis-interpret the provisions of s.9 of the CGST/SGST Acts and section 5 of the IGST Act by stating that the term 'tax' employed therein does not apply on the Central Excise duty, CST or VAT as it applies only on the 'supply' of goods and services - provisions of s.171 are not at all ambiguous and are rather very clear in their scope and intent, therefore, respondent's argument of invoking the legal maxim of contemporanea exposito to arrive at the 'contemporary exposition' of the statute is not tenable, hence case laws cited are inapplicable - no fault found in the DGAP calculation - There is no evidence to suggest that the respondent had increased the base price due to withdrawal of the CE duty exemption, the benefit of which he was earlier giving to his customers as discount or due to inflation - if the respondent had not increased the price annually, it was his own business call for which he cannot claim any allowance - respondent has failed to explain the coincidence why he had increased the base price on the date from which the rate of tax was reduced which leads to the only conclusion that he wanted to appropriate the benefit of tax reduction by such increase - respondent also cannot increase his base price to cover the losses at the expense of the tax concession given to customers - respondent has in his submission dated 24.12.2018 to the Authority has specifically admitted that he had resorted to profiteering and agreed to deposit the entire amount of Rs.96,59,716.26 along with applicable interest, therefore, there is no doubt that he has contravened the provisions of s.171(1) of the Act and is hence liable for its consequences -Perusal of the records indicate that respondents nos. 2 & 3 did not have any role regarding increase in the base price as well as the MRP of the product as it was solely done by respondent no.1, who is primarily responsible for the benefit of reduction in the tax rate not having been passed on to the recipients - as the applicant has not produced the invoice vide which he had purchased the impugned product, the amount to be refunded to him cannot be determined, however, the Authority places on record its appreciation of the efforts made by the applicant to bring to notice this case of profiteering - respondent is directed to deposit, within three months, the profiteered amount of Rs.96,59,716.26 along with interest, in the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Central and the State governments concerned as per rule 133(3)(c) of the Rules, 2017 in the ratio of 50:50 - DGAP to further investigate the quantum of profiteering on all the products - as the respondent has deliberately and consciously acted in contravention of the provisions of the CGST Act by issuing incorrect invoices, which is an offence u/s 122(1)(i) of the Act, he is also liable to penalty under the said section read with rule 133(3)(d) of the Rules - SCN to be issued accordingly: NAPA

- Application disposed of: NAA

2019-TIOL-14-NAA-GST

Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs Velbon Vitrified Tiles Pvt Ltd

GST - Anti-profiteering - Allegation is that respondent had indulged in profiteering in contravention of provisions of s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - two invoices have been placed reliance upon, one issued on 24.10.2017 i.e. in the pre-GST rate reduction period and one thereafter, dated 15.12.2017; that the GST rate on the product ‘Ceramic Vitrified tiles' nano series PRE-1 (HSN Code 6907 2100) was reduced to 18% from the then existing rate of 28% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 - DGAP, in its report stating that there was no increase in the per unit taxable amount (excluding GST) of the product as compared to the pre-GST rate i.e. the base price per box excluding GST remained constant at Rs.232.50 and, therefore, the provisions of s.171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 relating to profiteering had not been contravened.

Held: It is clear that the base price of the product per box was Rs.232.50 prior to 15.11.2017 and had remained the same even after GST rate reduction w.e.f 15.11.2017, therefore, the benefit of rate reduction appears to have been passed on - authority agrees with the report of the DGAP and accordingly holds that the allegation of profiteering is not sustainable - since the provisions of s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 have not been contravened, there is no merit in the application alleging profiteering and hence same is dismissed: NAPA

- Application dismissed : NATIONAL ANTI PROFITEERING AUTHORITY

2019-TIOL-13-NAA-GST

Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs Kajaria Ceramics Ltd

GST - Anti-profiteering - It is alleged that the respondent had indulged in profiteering in contravention of the provisions of s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - reliance is placed on two invoices in this regard, one is dated 27.04.2017 and the other is 25.08.2017 - DGAP, in its report, stated that the rate of tax applicable on the product was CE duty @12.5% of the 60% of the MRP and there was no VAT or CST charged in the invoice whereas after implementation of GST w.e.f 01.07.2017, the tax rate shown in the invoice is @28% - That the effective rate of tax on the product in the pre-GST era was 13.97% and which was increased to 28% - That the provisions of s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 comes into play in the event there is a reduction in rate of tax or there is an increase in the Input Tax credit (ITC), the latter not being the subject matter of this enquiry - That, consequently, as there was no reduction in the tax rate of the said product, the provisions of s.171 of the Act were not contravened and hence the allegations of profiteering are not established.

Held: The only issue that needs to be dwelt upon is as to whether there was reduction in the rate of tax on the product in question after introduction of GST and whether the provisions of s.171 of the Act are attracted -It is apparent from the DGAP report that there was no reduction of tax rate with the introduction of GST; that the invoices very clearly show that no VAT was levied and CST was also exempted prior to 01.07.2017; that in fact the rate of tax had increased from CE duty @13.97% to GST @28% w.e.f 01.07.2017 and, therefore, the allegation of profiteering is not sustainable in terms of s.171 of the Act as there has been no reduction in the rate of tax - no merit in the application filed and hence is dismissed: NAPA

- Application dismissed : NATIONAL ANTI PROFITEERING AUTHORITY

2019-TIOL-12-NAA-GST

Director General Anti-Profiteering Vs S3 Infra Reality Pvt Ltd

GST - Anti-Profiteering - Applicant, in his complaint, alleges that the respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by way of commensurate reduction in the price after implementation of GST w.e.f 01.07.2017 and charged GST on full amount of installments - DGAP has in its report submitted that as per the documents submitted by the respondent, unlike other cases in which allegation of not passing on the benefit of ITC is generally contested, in the present case the respondent had suo motu admitted that there has been benefit of ITC post GST inasmuch as post GST the ITC is 6.49% as compared to 3.65% in pre-GST and he had passed on such benefit to the applicant by reducing the demand raised in the month of February 2018 by Rs.12,492/- which was 1.23% of the amount collected post GST; that the benefit of additional ITC of 2.84% of the taxable turnover which had accrued to the respondent was required to be passed on to the applicant and other recipients; that on this account the respondent had realized an additional amount of Rs.23,772/-, the profiteered amount, however, the respondent had suo motu passed on Rs.12,492/- to the applicant and the actual profiteered amount stands at Rs.11,280/-; that there were a total of 663 other recipients who were not applicants in present proceedings and the additional amount of Rs.57,65,329/- was required to be returned to the eligible recipients; that the period of investigation is from 01.07.2017 to 31.06.2018.

Held: Respondent submitted that they accept the report submitted by DGAP and were in the process of passing on the ITC benefits to all the recipients/buyers; that the major amount has already been passed along with interest @18% and the balance would be paid in due course; that cheques have been sent to all the buyers along with interest to buyers who have made full payment for their flat as on 31.08.2018; that in respect of all buyers whose instalments were pending, letters have been issued to the effect that the ITC as per DGAP's calculation is being credited into their ledgers - Since respondent has denied benefit of ITC to buyers in contravention of s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and has realized more price from them than he was entitled to collect and had compelled them to pay more GST than what they were required to pay, by issuing incorrect tax invoices, they have committed an offence u/s 122(1)(i) of the Act and are liable for imposition of penalty - SCN to be issued in this regard - Commissioners of CGST/SGST Haryana to monitor this order under supervision of DGAP by ensuring that the amount profiteered is passed on to all the buyers and a compliance report be submitted within a period of three months: NAPA

- Application disposed of: NAA

 

JEST GST by Vijay Kumar

Where is the Tribunal?

Make Your Trip Within the framework of Law

 

ARTICLES

GST - Real Estate looking for 'REAL' Solutions!

GST - Real Estate heading for a PAINFUL tax regime!

SEIS Scheme-Challenges to exporters continues

Miseries of Resident Welfare Associations

Inclusion of post import marketing expenses

Grandfathering unexpired incentives under GST - role model State

The Ghost of virtual check-post

Will the Notification/Circular route work?

GST - Agenda for the second year - Part XXVII