Case Law Details
Shri Ramesh Kumar Yadav Vs M/s Vatika Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
The contentions of Applicant No. 1 mainly stress upon the fact that the construction was not completed before the GST had come into force and the payment was made by him in the GST regime along with GST. He had also alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC. It can be concluded that none of his contentions fall under the ambit of Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as the Respondent had not availed any ITC in the post-GST regime as has been stated by the DGAP in his Report. The allegation of not passing on the benefit of ITC is not established. Even the charging of GST @18% in post-GST regime is not within the scope of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017.
Similarly, contentions of Applicant No. 2 are that the Respondent had collected/recovered GST from him beyond the terms of Builder-Buyer Agreement (BBA) for the services which had been completed in the pre-GST regime and that he had not passed on the benefit of the additional ITC available to the Respondent after implementation of the GST w.e.f 01.07.2017. The DGAP in his investigation Report has clearly stated that in the post-GST regime the Respondent had not availed ITC and there was no ITC available with the Respondent, the benefit of which could have been passed on to the recipients. The provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted in the present case and therefore, the contentions of the Applicant No. 2 also do not fall under the scope of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Further, it has been revealed from the records that Respondent had completed the project “Independent Floor Phase-II” prior to implementation of the GST and he had neither availed ITC on any of the inputs procured in the GST Regime, nor had he availed/carried forward the pre-GST credit pertaining to the stock held in hand as on 30.06.2017. Therefore, he is not liable to pass on the benefit of ITC to the above Applicants. Therefore, the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 which state that “a reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices”, have not been contravened in the present case, as the same are not even applicable.
In view of the above, the allegation that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of ITC is not sustainable.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
