|
2022-TIOL-08-NAA-GST
Dreamhome Infrastructures Pvt Ltd
GST - Anti-Profiteering - S.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant submitted that they had purchased a flat in the respondent's project ‘Heritage Max', Dwarka Expressway, Gurugram and have alleged that the respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC to him by of commensurate reduction in price - DGAP in its report has submitted that the ITC as a percentage of the turnover that was available to the respondent during the pre-GST period (April 2016 to June 2017) was 3.42% and during the post-GST period (July 2017 to June 2019) was 8.23% and which confirmed that post-GST the respondent had benefited from additional ITC to the tune of 4.81% of the turnover but the same had not been passed to the applicant and others; that the profiteered amount came to Rs.4,74,54,151/- which included 12% GST on the base profiteered amount of Rs.4,23,69,778/-; that the benefit that is required to be passed on to the applicant no.1 is Rs.1,23,225/- which includes both the profiteered amount @4.81% of the base price and 12% GST on the profiteered amount - Respondent vide his submission dated 23.01.2020 claimed that the benefit of ITC of Rs.3,70,88,000/- had been passed on to the 245 customers (who had booked their flats up to 30.06.2019) and in this regard they submitted Journal Vouchers (JV) along with invoices issued to the customers and acknowledgement letters (on sample basis) from customers as supporting documents - DGAP in its report further stated that the benefit already passed on by the respondent was lesser than what he should have passed on in 390 cases including the applicant amounting to Rs.1,03,66,151/- - Respondent agreed with the calculation and submitted that the additional amount of refund would be passed on to the customers and documentary proof in this regard would be submitted to the authority - Authority finds that the respondent has profiteered by an amount of Rs.4,74,54,151/- during the period of investigation - Authority u/r 133(3)(a) orders that the respondent shall reduce the prices to be realised from the 390 buyers of the flats commensurate with the benefit of ITC received by him as detailed by DGAP - For the offence committed of violation of s.171(1) the respondent appears to be liable for imposition of penalty u/s 171(3A) - However, since these provisions have been inserted w.e.f 01.01.2020 and was not in operation during the period 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2019, penalty u/s 171(3A) cannot be imposed - It should be ensured by the jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner that within a period of 3 months the benefit of ITC is passed on by the respondent to each homebuyer along with interest @18% - In this regard an advertisement of appropriate size which is legible to public without extra efforts may also be published in minimum of two local newspapers/vernacular press in Hindi/English/local language with the details i.e Name of builder (respondent) - M/s Dreamhome Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Project - Heritage Max, Location - Gurugram, Haryana and amount of profiteering of Rs.4,74,54,151/- so that the applicant no.1 along with non-applicant homebuyers can claim the benefit of ITC which is not passed on to them - Homebuyers may also be informed that the detailed NAA order is available on Authority's website www.naa.gov.in - Contact details of concerned jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioners responsible for compliance of the NAA's order may also be advertised through the said advertisement - Compliance report to be submitted by CGST/SGST Commissioner within four months - Order passed by NAA falls within the limitation prescribed under rule 133(1) of the Rules, 2017 in view of the orders dated 20.03.2020, 10.01.2022 passed by the Apex Court on the aspect of limitation: NAA
- Application disposed of: NAPA
2022-TIOL-05-NAA-GST
GLS Infraprojects Pvt Ltd
GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - A notice u/r 129(3) was issued by the DGAP on 18.01.2019 calling upon the respondent to reply as to whether he admitted that he had charged 12% GST post 25.01.2018 when the GST rate on affordable housing projects was reduced from 12% to 8% vide notification 01/2018-CTR and whether the benefit of ITC had not been passed on to the applicant by way of commensurate reduction in price and if so, suo motu determine the quantum thereof and indicate the same in his reply to the notice and to furnish all supporting documents.
Held: It can be safely concluded that the project ‘Avenue-51' had been started after coming into force of GST w.e.f 01.07.2017; as the project was launched after implementation of GST apparently there was no pre-GST tax rate or Input Tax Credit availability that could be compared with the post-GST tax rate and the ITC to determine whether there was any benefit that was required to be passed on by way of reduced price - From the facts, it is established that there had been no additional benefit of ITC to the respondent and hence he is not required to pass on the benefit to the applicants by reducing the prices of the flats - Applicants 1 and 2 could have availed the above benefit only if the above project was under execution before coming into force of GST as the respondent would have been eligible to avail ITC on the purchase of goods and services after 01.07.2017 on which he was not entitled to do before the above date - Since there is no basis for comparison of ITC available before and after 01.07.2017, the respondent is not required to recalibrate the price of the flat due to additional benefit of ITC - Allegations of the applicants made in this behalf are incorrect and, therefore, same cannot be accepted - There is no merit in the applications filed by the two applicants and the same are accordingly dismissed - This order falls within the limitation prescribed under rule 133(1) of the Rules, 2017 in view of the orders dated 20.03.2020, 10.01.2022 passed by the Apex Court on the aspect of limitation : NAA
- Application disposed of: NAPA
2022-TIOL-03-NAA-GST
Sri Rana Electronics And Home Appliances
GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant alleges profiteering by the respondent in respect of supply of ‘Monitors and TVs of screen size up to 32 inches' - Applicant alleges that the respondent did not reduce the selling price of the impugned goods when the GST rate was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f 01.01.2019 vide notification 24/2018-CTR and the price of the product was increased by the respondent and thus the benefit of reduction in GST rate was not passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in the price in terms of s.171 of the Act, 2017 - DGAP has in its report concluded that the base price of the ‘Monitors and TVs of screen size up to 32 inches' was indeed increased post GST rate reduction w.e.f 01.01.2019 and by increasing the base price of the goods, the commensurate benefit of reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% was not passed on to the recipients; that the total amount of profiteering during the period 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019 is Rs.4699/- - Applicant vide their email dated 01.06.2020 informed that they agree with the DGAP report and have deposited the profiteered amount of Rs.4699/- in the Consumer Welfare funds and also paid interest amount of Rs.1500/- - DGAP report is accepted by the Authority, however, DGAP is directed to verify the computation of interest as paid by the respondent - Since the provisions of Section 171(3A) for imposition of penalty for contravening the provisions of s.171(1) has come into effect from 01.01.2020, no penalty is imposable in the present case - Order passed by NAA falls within the limitation prescribed under rule 133(1) of the Rules, 2017 in view of the orders dated 20.03.2020, 10.01.2022 passed by the Apex Court on the aspect of limitation: NAA
- Application disposed of: NAPA
NAA_IO_04_2022
Adhiraj Constructions
GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant states that they had purchased a flat in the respondent's project Samyama City Tower 1-D and has alleged profiteering by the respondent in respect of the Construction service supplied; that the respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC to him by way of commensurate reduction in the prices. Held: RERA approval of the project Samyama City Tower 1-D was given for the period 08.01.2018 to 31.03.2023; all bookings and fixation of price have been made after GST was introduced and that all payments have been received after 01.07.2017 - As such, in the given facts and circumstances, the Authority finds that no case of profiteering u/s 171(1) of the Act, 2017 can be made out against the respondent in respect of Samyama City Tower 1-D - However, the Authority finds that the Respondent is also executing nine other projects and the issue of profiteering has not been examined by the DGAP - Authority finds that there exists reason to investigate the other nine projects for the purpose of determination of profiteering - Accordingly, as per the provisions of s.171(2) of the Act, Authority takes suo motu cognisance of the same and in terms of rule 133(5) directs the DGAP to conduct investigation in respect of the other nine projects and submit report for determination whether the respondent is liable to pass on the benefit of ITC to the buyers - Respondent is directed to extend all assistance to the DGAP and furnish the necessary documents or information as required during the course of investigation - Further, this Order passed by NAA falls within the limitation prescribed under rule 133(1) of the Rules, 2017 in view of the orders dated 20.03.2020, 10.01.2022 passed by the Apex Court on the aspect of limitation: NAA
-Interim order passed NAA_IO_01_2022 AJ Enterprises
GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant alleges profiteering in respect of restaurant service supplied by respondent despite reduction in the rate of GST from 18% to 5% w.e.f 15.11.2017 by way of commensurate reduction in prices.
Held: Authority finds that it is fit case for further investigation as per the provisions of rule 133(4) of the Rules, 2017 - Authority, therefore, directs the DGAP to re-investigate the issues as detailed in this order and furnish his report u/r 129(6) of the Rules - Respondent is directed to fully co-operate with the DGAP in the process of re-investigation which includes submission of the requisite documents/details/information pertaining to his supplies - Order passed by NAA falls within the limitation prescribed under rule 133(1) of the Rules, 2017 in view of the orders dated 20.03.2020, 10.01.2022 passed by the Apex Court on the aspect of limitation: NAA
- Interim order |
|
