Case Law Details
Ms. Santosh Kumar Vs M/s Aster Infrahome Pvt. Ltd, (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
NAA carefully considered the Report of the DGAP, submissions made by the Respondent and based on the record it is revealed that the above Applicants had purchased flats from the Respondent in his “Green Court” project situated in Sector 90, Gurugram, Haryana which was got approved by him under the Affordable Housing Policy-2013 of the Government of Haryana. The above Applicants have complained to the Haryana State Screening Committee under Rule 128 (2) of the CGST Rules that the Respondent has not granted them the benefit of ITC which he has obtained after coming in to force of the CGST Act, 2017 by commensurate reduction in the price of the flats and was also charging VAT from them @12%. The above Committee has forwarded their complaints to the Standing Committee which has sent their applications to the DGAP for detailed investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the above Rules. The DGAP after investigation has furnished the present Report dated 28.02.2019 to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stating that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of additional ITC to his flat buyers including the above Applicants and has violated the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 by profiteering an amount of Rs. 5,30,34,074/- which was required to be passed on to them as per the details given in Annexure-25 of his Report.
Respondent has profiteered by an amount of Rs. 5,30,34,074/- for the period under investigation. Therefore, this Authority under Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017 orders that the Respondent shall reduce/refund the price to be realized from the buyers of the flats commensurate with the benefit of ITC received by him as has been detailed above. The present investigation is only up to 30.08.2018 therefore, any additional benefit of ITC which shall accrue subsequently to the Respondent shall also be passed on to the buyers by the Respondent. In case this additional benefit is not passed on to the Applicant No. 1 to 12 or any other buyer they shall be at liberty to approach the State Screening Committee Haryana for initiating fresh proceedings under Section 171 of the above Act against the Respondent. The concerned CGST or SGST Commissioner shall take necessary action to ensure that the benefit of additional ITC is passed on to the eligible house buyers in future.
It is evident from the above that the Respondent has denied the benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by him in contravention of the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus committed an offence as per the provisions of Section 171 (3A) of the above Act. Therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty under Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice be issued to him directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed under the above provision should not be imposed on him. Accordingly, the notice dated 05.03.2019 vide which it was proposed to impose penalty on the Respondent as per the provisions of Section 29, 122-127 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 21 and 133 of the CGST Rules, is withdrawn to that extent.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING APPELLATE AUTHORITY
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
