Case Law Details
Sh. Peeyush Awasthi Vs Director General of Anti-Profiteering (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the Applicants as well as the rest 36 purchasers of flats in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus realized more price from them than what he was entitled to charge and has also compelled them to pay more GST than what they were required to pay by issuing incorrect tax invoices and hence he has committed offence under section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty under the above Section read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Although notice for imposition of penalty has already been issued to the Respondent on 16.11.2018 however, no formal oral or Case No. 39/2019 Page 23 of 24 Peeyush Awasthi Vs M/s Sun Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. written submissions have been filed by the Respondent on the quantum of penalty. Therefore, keeping in view the principles of natural justice it would be appropriate to issue fresh notice asking him to explain why penalty should not be imposed on him for the above offence.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING APPELLATE AUTHORITY
1. The present Report dated 29.10.2018, has been received from the Applicant No, 2 the Director 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 present case are that the Uttar Pradesh State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering, vide the minutes of its meeting held on 26.03.2018 had forwarded an application dated 09.01.2018 filed by the Applicant No. 1 to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Applicant No. 1 had stated that the Respondent had resorted to profiteering in respect of supply of construction service related to purchase of Villa No. B-02 in the Respondent’s project “City Park Township”, Lodhipur, Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh- 242001. The Applicant No. 1 had also alleged that the Respondent had increased the price of the Villa after implementation of the Goods & Service Tax (GST) w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the Villa purchased by him. He had also claimed that the Respondent had committed contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence appropriate action should be taken against him.
2. The Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering vide the minutes of its meeting held on 25.05.2018 had requested the DGAP to initiate investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and collect evidence necessary to determine whether the benefits of reduction in the rate of tax or ITC had been passed on by the Respondent to his recipients or not?
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
