Case Law Details
Smt. K. B. Sreedevi Vs Siva Rama Constructions (NAA)
The present Report dated 27.01.2021 had been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129(6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the report were that the Applicant No. 1 had filed an application before the Andhra Pradesh State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules,2017 and alleged that Respondent had not passed on the benefit of the input tax credit by way of commensurate reduction in price to the Applicant in respect of the purchase of Flat No. 201 in the Respondent’s project ” Sai Partha Sreekar Residency”, Marripalem Vuda layout, Visakhapatnam – 530009 in terms of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Applicant No. 1 has filed a complaint alleging 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. 201 purchased from the Respondent in his project “Sai Partha Sreckar Residency” in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
It is also noted that the DGAP, after a detailed investigation, has found that the Respondent has not contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as the date of commencement of the instant project was after the inception of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017. Further, the first booking in the instant project was made by the Respondent on 06.09.2018 and the Applicant had booked the Flat no. 201 on 15.10.2018 i.e. in post-GST period. Further, as per the registration details, the Respondent having Registration No. 336/2004 obtained Building Permission from 02.02.2018 which was also the Project starting date. There was no pre-GST tax rate/ details or ITC credit structure/details which could be compared with the post-GST tax rate and ITC. There was no benefit of CENVAT to compare ITC which was available to the Respondent post implementation of GST while fixing the base price in this case. The Applicant No. 1 has not responded on the merit in respect of the DGAP report dated 27.01.2021. The contention of the Applicant No. 1 regarding denial of principles of natural justice is found to be unsustainable as enough opportunities were provided to him to put up in case before the Authority.
In view of the above discussions, the Authority finds that there is no contravention of Section 1’71(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Thus the Authority concur with the DGAP report dated 27.01.2021.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
