Case Law Details
Jitendra Kumar Vs Adhiraj Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)
It is observed from the DGAP’s report and documents submitted during the investigation that the instant project (Samyama City Tower 1-D) has received RERA approval for the period 08.01.2018 to 31.03.2023. It is also noted that all bookings have been made after GST was introduced and that all payments have been received after 01.07.2017.
However, the Authority also observes that provision of the RERA Act, 2016 make it mandatory for a real estate developer/promoter to maintain separate bank accounts for each of his projects registered separately under the RERA Act, 2016. In the case of the Respondent, the above provision implies that he was required to maintain ten separate escrow/bank accounts in respect of all projects as mentioned in Table-B’ of the DGAP report dated 27.11.2020. However the DGAP’s Report has no mention of this aspect. As the Respondent had obtained ten separate RERA registrations for his ten projects, he should have maintained separate escrow/bank accounts.
It is also noted that the Respondent has single GST registration for the all ten projects and is maintaining a joint ITC Register and is availing ITC on all the projects. He is executing all projects from a common pool of ITC, to discharge his tax output liability on these projects through the combined GSTR-3B Returns and that he has availed substantial CENVAT/VAT credit in pre and post GST period in respect of these other projects. In view of the above said facts, there exist reasons to believe that other nine projects on which the Respondent is availing ITC from the common pool may be investigated to determine whether he has passed on the benefit of ITC to the buyers of each project, which are being executed by him.
For the reasons discussed earlier i.e. RERA approval of the project Samyama City Tower 1-D was given for the period 08.01.2018 to 31.3.2023, that all bookings and fixation of price have been made after GST was introduced and that all payments have been received after 01.07.2017; as such in the given facts and circumstances, the Authority finds that no case of profiteering under section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 can be made out against the Respondent in respect of “Samyama City Tower 1-D”.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
