Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Panchshil Infrastructure Holding Pvt. Ltd. (Competition Commission of India)
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has concluded its detailed investigation against Panchshil Infrastructure Holding Pvt. Ltd. on the grounds of anti-profiteering. Following a report by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), the Commission analyzed the application of anti-profiteering provisions in accordance with the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. This examination revolved around various projects undertaken by Panchshil Infrastructure and their compliance with the GST regime.
The DGAP’s investigation initiated upon an order by the erstwhile National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA), focusing on the benefits of ITC not passed on to recipients by Panchshil Infrastructure. Various details and factors were examined, including:
1. The Respondent’s Claims: Panchshil Infrastructure responded to the DGAP’s notice, outlining its arguments regarding the non-applicability of anti-profiteering provisions to certain projects, which were either sold post-receipt of OC or commenced in the GST regime.
2. Investigation of Projects: The DGAP closely examined the projects, including Yoovilla-Phase I, Tanti Villa, Yoovilla-Phase II, and SOHO, verifying them against MRERA registrations and evaluating their status under the CGST Act, 2017.
3. DGAP’s Findings: The DGAP concluded that Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, was not applicable to the projects investigated, except for “Panchshil Towers,” where a profiteered amount of Rs. 1,96,69,483/- had already been determined.
4. Commission’s Observations: The Commission carefully considered the DGAP’s Report and documents, arriving at the final determination of the applicability of anti-profiteering provisions in different projects.
Conclusion: The Competition Commission of India’s detailed investigation into Panchshil Infrastructure Holding Pvt. Ltd. revealed nuanced perspectives on anti-profiteering under the CGST Act, 2017. The majority of the projects undertaken by Panchshil Infrastructure were found to be outside the purview of anti-profiteering provisions, except for the “Panchshil Towers.”
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
1. The present Report dated 15.02.2023 had been received from the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (herein after referred to as the “DGAP”) on 16.02.2023 by the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”) after a detailed investigation under Rule 133(5) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). The brief facts of the case are that the erstwhile National Anti-Profiteering Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “NAA”) in the case of M/s Panchshil Infrastructure Holding Pvt. Ltd., Tech Park One, Tower-E, Next to Don Bosco School, Yerwada. Pune-411006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent”), vide Para-33 of the Order No. 62/2022 dated 29.08.2022 had directed the DGAP to investigate profiteering in relation to projects other than the project “Panchshil Tower” being constructed by the Respondent under single GST Registration No. i.e. 27AADCP6098D1Z8 under Rule 133(5) of the Rules, and submit investigation report to the NAA for determination whether the Respondent was liable to pass on the benefit of ITC in respect all the other Projects/Blocks to the buyers, or not. as per the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. Vide the above mentioned Report, the DGAP has stated that:-
i. The Authority vide Para-33 of the Order No. 62/2022 dated 29.08.2022 determined Rs. 1,96,69,483/- as the amount of benefit of ITC not passed on to the recipients by the Respondent during the period from 01.07 2017 to 30.11.2020.
ii. On receipt of the aforesaid Order, a notice under Rule 129 of the Rules was issued by the DGAP on 05.09.2022, calling upon the Respondent to reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of ITC had not been passed on to the buyers by way of commensurate reduction in prices in all other projects under taken by the Respondent.
iii. The period covered by the current investigation was from 01.07 2017 to 31 07 2022.
iv. In response to the notice dated 05.09.2022, the Respondent submitted his reply vide letter and e-mails dated 19.09.2022, 22.12.2022, 16.01.2023 and 13.02 2023 The detailed submissions of the Respondent were quoted as follows: –
a. The Respondent stated that other construction related projects undertaken by the Respondent had either been sold after obtaining Occupancy Certificate (“OC”) or had been commenced in the GST regime. It was also stated that none of the projects had transitioned from the erstwhile tax regime.
b. The Respondent further stated that it was amply clear that the sale of building, post receipt of OC was excluded from the purview of GST. It was also submitted that the anti-profiteering provisions would not be applicable to other projects undertaken by the Respondent as these projects had been either sold post receipt of OC or had been commenced in the GST regime and had not transitioned from the erstwhile regime.
c. In view of the above, it was submitted that the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 were not applicable to the Respondent and accordingly, the information sought by the DGAP might not be required. Thus, he requested not to undertake any further investigation in this regard.
The Respondent had tabulated the requisite details of other projects undertaken as follows: –
