2022-TIOL-58-NAA-GST
Pareena Infrastructure Pvt Ltd
GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant has alleged that the respondent has not passed on the benefit of ITC to him by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the flat booked in project ‘Laxmi Apartment', Gurugram.
Held: It is revealed from the DGAP's report that the ITC as a percentage of the turnover that was available to the respondent during the pre-GST period was 1.61 % and during the post GST period was 9.88% and this confirms that the respondent has benefited from additional ITC to the tune of 8.27% of his turnover for the said project and the same was required to be passed on to the customers/flat buyers - DGAP has calculated the amount of ITC benefit that is to be passed on to the customers/flat buyers as Rs.6,33,70,091/- for the project Laxmi Apartments - Authority finds no reason to differ from the detailed computation of the profiteered amount by the DGAP or the methodology adopted by it - Authority, therefore, orders under rule 133(3)(a) of the Rules that the respondent shall reduce the price to be realised from the customers/flat buyers commensurate with the benefit of additional ITC received by him - Respondent is also liable to pay interest @18% - The amounts have to be paid/passed on within a period of 3 months - Penalty is not imposable as the section 171(3A) has been inserted in the Act, 2017 w.e.f 01.01.2020 and hence the respondent is liable to penalty only for the amount profiteered after 01.01.2020 - Authority directs that the notice be issued for this purpose - Jurisdictional Commissioner is directed to ensure compliance of the said order - An advertisement is also to be published in a minimum of two local newspapers/vernacular press in Hindi/English/local language indicating the details of the builder/respondent, the amount of profiteering so that the applicant and the other non-applicants/buyers can claim the benefit of ITC which has not been passed on to them - Compliance report is to be submitted by the Commissioner CGST/SGST within four months - In view of the apex court decision dated 10.01.2022 the period of limitation has been extended, therefore, the order being passed now by the Authority is within the limitation period prescribed under rule 133(1) of the Rules, 2017: NAA
- Application disposed of: NAPA
2022-TIOL-55-NAA-GST
Elan Ltd
GST - As the Respondent himself admitted that he had been constructing one project namely "Epic", therefore, Authority taking suo moto cognizance, directed the DGAP to investigate said project being executed by Respondent and submit his Report undet Rule 129 (6) stating whether Respondent is liable to pass on benefit of ITC to the buyers of said project and their entitlement thereof - All the relevant events for project 'Epic' took place in GST regime and the Respondent had not availed any CENVAT/ITC, related to 'EPIC' project, in pre-GST regime and that the Respondent neither raised any demand nor received any advance for this project in Pre-GST regime - Therefore, there was no pre-GST tax rate or ITC structure which could be compared with post-GST tax rate and ITC structure and therefore, provisions of Section 171 (1) of CGST Act, 2017 were not applicable against Respondent's project "Epic" - Authority concurs with findings of DGAP that provisions of section 171 (1) of CGST Act, 2017 does not get attracted - Supreme court vide its subsequent Order has extended the period of limitation till 28.02.2022 - Accordingly this order falls within the limitation prescribed under Rule 133(1) of CGST Rules, 2017: NAA
- Application disposed of: NAPA
2022-TIOL-53-NAA-GST
SSBC Real Estate Pvt Ltd
GST - Applicant had alleged that Respondent had not passed on benefit of input tax credit to him by way of commensurate reduction in price in terms of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 - As input tax credit @ 6.39% and 1.59% of turnover was available to respondent during post -GST period and pre-GST period respectively, therefore he had benefitted from additional ITC to the tune of 4.80% of turnover which was required to be passed on to flat buyers - Hence, he has contravened provisions of Section 171 of the Act - Respondent is directed to pass on an amount to home buyers - Said amount shall be refunded by him alongwith interest @18% thereon - This Authority under Rule 133 (3) (a) of CGST Rules, 2017 orders that Respondent shall reduce the prices to be realized from buyers of units commensurate with benefit of ITC received by him - Concerned jurisdictional Commissioner CGST/SGST are directed to ensure compliance of order - An advertisement of appropriate size to be visible to public 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 SSBC Real Estate Pvt Ltd., Project- "The Elegance", situated at Partap Nagar, Jaipur and amount of profiteering so that the concerned homebuyers can claim the benefit of ITC if not passed on - Homebuyers may also be informed that detailed NAA Order is available on Authority's website www.naa.gov.in. - Contact details of concerned Jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner may also be advertised through the said advertisement - A report in compliance of this Order shall be submitted to this Authority and DGAP, by the Commissioners CGST /SGST within a period of 4 months - This Order having been passed today falls within the limitation prescribed under Rule 133(1) of CGST Rules, 2017: NAA
- Application disposed of: NAPA
2022-TIOL-52-NAA-GST
Swati Realty
GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant has alleged that the respondent has not passed on the additional benefit of ITC to him by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the flat booked in project 'Swati Florence', Ahmedabad.
Held: It is revealed from the DGAP's report that the respondent has benefited from additional ITC to the tune of 6.33% of his turnover for the said project and the same was required to be passed on to the customers/flat buyers - DGAP has calculated the amount of ITC benefit that is to be passed on to the customers/flat buyers as Rs.4,52,79,754/- for the project Swati Florence for the period July 2017 to July 2020 - Respondent had submitted that they had passed on the benefit of Rs.1,78,71,200/- to all the home buyers/customers - The DGAP has verified such claims by sending emails but only some of the homebuyers have responded and since the same is not conclusive has Tabulated at Table A and observed that respondent has not passed commensurate benefit to all homebuyers/customers - Authority finds no reason to differ from the detailed computation of the profiteered amount by the DGAP or the methodology adopted by it - Authority, therefore, orders under rule 133(3)(a) of the Rules that the respondent shall reduce the price to be realised from the customers/flat buyers commensurate with the benefit of additional ITC received by him - Respondent is also liable to pay interest @18% - The amounts have to be paid/passed on within a period of 3 months - Penalty is not imposable for the entire period of enquiry as the section 171(3A) has been inserted in the Act, 2017 w.e.f 01.01.2020 and hence the respondent is liable to penalty only for the amount profiteered after 01.01.2020 - Accordingly, notice is required to be issued - Jurisdictional Commissioner is directed to ensure compliance of the said order - An advertisement is also to be published in a minimum of two local newspapers/vernacular press in Hindi/English/local language indicating the details of the builder/respondent, the amount of profiteering so that the applicant and the other non-applicants/buyers can claim the benefit of ITC which has not been passed on to them - Compliance report is to be submitted by the Commissioner CGST/SGST within four months - In view of the apex court decision dated 10.01.2022 the period of limitation has been extended, therefore, the order being passed now by the Authority is within the limitation period prescribed under rule 133(1) of the Rules, 2017: NAA
- Application disposed of: NAPA
2022-TIOL-50-NAA-GST
Jay Cee Chemists Pvt Ltd
GST - Applicant had alleged that Respondent did not passed on benefit of exemption of GST on Sanitary Napkins vide Notfn 19/2018-Central Tax(Rate) by way of commensurate reduction in price in terms of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 - It appears that by increasing base prices of products consequent to exemption from GST, the commensurate benefit of GST exemption was not passed on to recipients - The Authority determines that respondent has profiteered by an amount of Rs 2096/- for exemption of GST w.e.f. 27.7.2018 and had not been passed on to his recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices of 'Sanitary Napkins' - Since the recipients of benefit as determined other than Applicant, are not identifiable, Respondent is directed to deposit an amount of Rs 2094/- in two equal parts of Rs 1047 each in Central Consumer Welfare Fund and Uttar Pradesh Consumer Welfare Fund as per provisions of Rule 133(3)(c) of CGST Rules, 2017 alongwith interest @18% - This Authority under Rule 133 (3) (a) of CGST Rules, 2017 orders that Respondent shall reduce the prices to be realized from recipient commensurate with benefit exemption received by him - Respondent is liable for imposition of penalty under Section 1717(3A) - Concerned jurisdictional Commissioner CGST/SGST are directed to ensure compliance of order - This Order having been passed today falls within the limitation prescribed under Rule 133(1) of CGST Rules, 2017: NAA
- Application disposed of: NAPA
2022-TIOL-49-NAA-GST
Nani Resorts And Floriculture Pvt Ltd
GST - Anti-profiteering - where registration under RERA in respect of residential project is obtained post introduction of GST, profiteering charges against builder not sustainable, where no additional ITC is made available: NAA
GST - Anti Profiteering - The present application was filed on the basis of complaints filed by the Applicants alleging that the Respondent-company did not pass on commensurate benefit of Input Tax Credit following reduction in rate of tax on Construction service - The present application is in respect of a residential project being developed by the Respondent - Later, the DGAP investigation revealed that the project in question was launched after implementation of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and so there was no reduction in the rate of tax or any additional ITC - Hence it was concluded that there was no profiteering and no violation of the Section 171 of the CGST Act.
Held - In terms of the RERA Act, bookings in the relevant project could not happen till the registration was obtained - Since the registration was obtained for the subject projects post the introduction of the GST Act, the provisions of Section 171 dealing with Anti Profiteering could not be made applicable to the said projects, considering no additional ITC was made available to the Respondent - Hence the instant case does not fall within purview of Section 171: NAA
- Application dismissed: NAPA
2022-TIOL-29-NAA-GST
Perfect Buildwell Pvt Ltd
GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the Act, 2017 - Allegation is that the respondent has not passed on the benefit of ITC by way of commensurate reduction in price of the flat purchased by applicant in the respondent no. 1's project Project Zara Aavaas.
Held: It is established that the respondent has benefited from the additional ITC to the extent of 6.55% of the turnover during the period 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019 amounting to Rs.4,74,88,840/- - DGAP has verified that the respondent has already passed on the benefit of Rs.1,88,56,367/- to 772 home buyers and the balance amount is required to be passed along with interest @18% - Authority directs the respondent to comply with this order within a period of three months - An advertisement of appropriate size should also be published in minimum of two local newspapers/vernacular press with details of the supplier and amount of profiteering so that the homebuyers concerned can claim the benefit of ITC/interest which is not passed on to them - In view of the apex court decision dated 10.01.2022, the period of limitation has been extended, therefore, the order being passed now by the Authority is within the limitation period prescribed under rule 133(1) of the Rules, 2017: NAA
- Application disposed of: NAPA |
