Case Law Details
Sh. Ashok Khatri Vs S3 Infrareality Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)
1. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 2 (herein-after referred to as the DGAP) vide his Report dated 28.11.2018, furnished to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. had submitted that he had conducted an investigation on the complaint of the Applicant No. 1 and found that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional Input tax Credit (ITC) to the above Applicant as well as other home buyers who had purchased them in his Project “Auric City Homes”, as as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act. 2017. Vide his above Report the DGAP had also submitted that the Respondent had denied the benefit of ITC to the above buyers amounting to Rs. 1,48,60,874/-, pertaining to the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 and had thus indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act.
2. This Authority after careful consideration of the Report dated 28.11.2018 had issued notice dated 04.12.2019 to the Respondent to show cause why the Report furnished by the DGAP should not accepted and his liability for violation of the provisions of Section 171 should not be fixed. After hearing both the parties at length this Authority vide its Order No. 12/2019 dated 27.02.2019 had determined the profiteered amount as Rs. 57 76.610 {1,48,60,874- 9084264(already passed on)} as per the provisions of Section 171(2) of the above Act read with Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 pertaining to the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 and also held the Respondent in violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1).
3. During the course of the hearing therefore, it was held that the Respondent had not only collected extra amount on account of price of the flats from his customers but he had also compelled them to pay more GST on the additional amount realised from them between the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.08 2018 and therefore, he had apparently committed an offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence, he was liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of the above Section.
4. The Respondent was issued notice dated 11.03.2019 asking him to explain why the penalty mentioned in Section 122(1) read with Rule 133 (3) (d) should not be imposed on him.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
