Sh. Dinesh Jain & Ms. Madhu Jain Vs Sanghvi Premises Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)
NAA held that Sanghvi Premises Pvt. Ltd. has not passed ITC benefit to Its customers in its Project ‘Sanghvi Solitaire’ situated at Borivali, Maharashtra in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Applicant alleged that Sanghvi Premises Pvt. Ltd. had not passed on the benefit of ITC to him by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the Flat No. 11-1601 purchased from the Respondent in the Respondent’s project ‘Sanghvi Solitaire’ situated at Borivali, Maharashtra in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Authority finds that the benefit of additional Input tax Credit of 5.86% of the turnover has accrued to the Respondent for the project “Sanghvi Solitaire”. This benefit was required to be passed on to the recipients. Thus. Section 171 of the CGST. 2017 has been contravened by the Respondent. inasmuch as the additional benefit of ITC @5.86% of the base price received by the Respondent during the period 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019, was required to be passed on by the Respondent to 17 recipients including the Applicant no. These recipients are identifiable as per the documents provided by the Respondent, giving the names and addresses along with Unit no. allotted to such recipients.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
1. The Present report dated 23.02.2021 had been received by the Authority from the Applicant No. 2, i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering after a detailed investigation under Rule 129(6) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The brief facts if the case was that the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, received an Application under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules“). filed by Applicant No. 1 alleging profiteering in respect of construction service supplied by the Respondent. The Applicant No. I alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC to him by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the Flat No. 11-1601 purchased from the Respondent in the Respondent’s project “Sanghvi Solitaire”. situated at Borivali, Maharashtra in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. The DGAP in his Investigation Report dated 23.02.2021, has inter-alia, submitted as under:-
2.1 The aforesaid application was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, in his meeting held on 21.10.2020. the minutes of which were received in the DGAP on 11.11.2020, whereby it was decided to forward the same to the DGAP to conduct a detailed investigation in the matter. Accordingly. investigation was initiated to collect evidence necessary to determine whether the benefit of ITC had been passed on by the Respondent to the Applicant No. 1 in respect of construction service supplied by the Respondent.
2.2 On receipt of the reference from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering. a Nonce was issued to the Respondent on 07.12.2020. calling upon the Respondent to reply as to whether he admit that the benefit of ITC had not been passed on to the Applicant No. 1 by way of commensurate reduction in price and if so, to Suo moto determine the quantum thereof and indicate the same in his reply to the Notice as well as furnish all the supporting documents. Vide the said Notice, the Respondent was also given an opportunity to inspect the non confidential evidences/information furnished by the Applicant No. 1 during the period 15.12.1020 to 16.12.2020. However, the Respondent did not avail of this opportunity.
2.3 Vide e-mail dated 11.02.2021, the Applicant No. 1 was afforded-an opportunity to inspect the non-confidential documents/reply flan/shed by the Respondent on 10.02.2021 or 17.02.2021. The Applicant No. 1 vide e-mail dated 17.12.2020 stated that he was hospitalized due to heart problem and requested to share documents or to share any address of Authority’s office which was in Mumbai. The period covered by the current investigation was from 01.07.2017 to 30.10.2020.
2.4 The time limit to complete the investigation was 10.05.2021.
2.5 In response to the Notice dated 07.12.2020. the Respondent submitted his reply vide letters and e-mails dated 16.12.2020, 23,12,2020, 15.01.2021, 25.01.2021 and 02.02.2021. The important submissions of the Respondent are as under. –
a. The above investigation had been initiated based on -application filed to Authority under Rule 128 of cost Rules 2017 by his customer Sh. Dinah Jain & Ms. Madhu Jain (hereinafter referred to as “Complainant”) who had booked Flat No. 1i-1601 in his Project Sanghvi Solitaire.
b. He had sold Flat B-1601 and measuring 916 Square Feet (RERA Carpet) to Sh Dinesh Jain & Ms. Madhu Jain vide his Agreement fur sale dated 18th June 2018 for Rs. 1,66,23,480/-.
Summary of above was showcased below:
