Case Law Details
M/s. Hermeet Kaur Bakshi Vs M/s Conscient Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
The main allegation of the above Applicant was that GST @12% was charged instead of 8%. However as noticed from the demand letter dated 16.04.2018 which the above Applicant had quoted the total value was shown as Rs. 3,21,124/- and the taxable value was shown as Rs. 2,14,083/- (2/3rd of the total value of Rs. 3,21,124/, separately for calculating the tax liability and the Respondent had charged GST @ 12% on the taxable value which was 2/3rd of the total value. Therefore, the effective rate of GST was 8% on the total value of Rs. 3,21,124/-, which clearly shows that the Respondent had reduced the GST rate from 12% to 8% w.e.f 25.01.2018, in terms of Notification No. 01/2018 Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018. It is also observed that based on the above clarification the Applicant No. 1 has admitted her mistake and withdrawn her complaint. She has also declined to be heard as she had surrendered the flat.
In view of the above facts it is clearly established that the Respondent had not contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, hence we find no merit in the application filed by the above Applicants and the same is accordingly dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING APPELLATE AUTHORITY
1. This Report dated 27.02.2019, has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that complaint dated 26.09.2018 was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, by the Applicant No.1, alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purchase of a flat in the Respondent’s project “Habitat-78” situated in Sector-78, Faridabad, Haryana The above Applicant had alleged that the Respondent had charged 12% GST on the demand raised on 17.04.2018, i.e., after 25.01.2018, when the GST rate was reduced from 12% to 8% in case of affordable housing projects and also that the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) had not been passed on to her by the Respondent by way of commensurate reduction in price. Along with the application, the above Applicant had submitted copies of her correspondences with the Respondent.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
