Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Amarjeet Singh Yadav Vs Radicon Infrastructure & Housing Private Limited (NAA)
Appeal Number : Case No. 31/2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 17/06/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Amarjeet Singh Yadav Vs Radicon Infrastructure & Housing Private Limited (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

National Anti-Profiteering Authority hereby determines the profiteered amount as Rs. 40,92,054/- in terms of Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and directs the Respondent to pass on the benefit of Rs. 6,982/- [21,496 – 14,514] to the Applicant No. 1 and an amount of Rs. 40,70,558/- to the other buyers as per the details given in Annexure-18 of the DGAP’s Report dated 05.12.2018 along with interest @18% per annum to the flat buyers from the dates from which the above amount was collected by him from the buyers till the payment is made as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (b) of the above Rules. The Respondent is also directed to reduce the prices of his flats commensurately as per the details mentioned above in terms of Rule 133 (3) (a) of the above Rules.

It is also clear from the facts of the case that the Respondent has been directed to pass on the benefit of ITC till 31.08.2018. Any benefit of ITC which may become available to the Respondent post 08.2018 would also be passed on by the Respondent to the eligible buyers. The Concerned Commissioner GST shall ensure that the above benefit is passed on to the eligible buyers and report submitted to this Authority.

It is also evident from the above narration of facts that the Respondent has denied the benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats  being constructed by him in his Project `Vedantam’ in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, he is apparently liable for imposition of penalty as per the provisions of Section 171 (3A) read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, notice be issued to him to explain why penalty should not be imposed on him. Accordingly, the notice dated 11.12.2018 whereby the Respondent was asked to explain why penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 29, 122-127 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 21 and 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed, is partially withdrawn to that extent.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.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031