It is clear from the plain reading of Section 171(1) mentioned above that it deals with two situations one relating to the passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax and the second pertaining to the passing on the benefit of the ITC.
It it is revealed that the Respondent is executing his Synera project under the Affordable Housing Scheme approved by the Government of Haryana under the Prime Minister Awas Yojana and is constructing both the residential and commercial accommodation.
It is also evident from above narration of facts that Respondent has denied benefit of rate reduction to buyers of product Sanitary Napkin in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus resorted to profiteering, which is an offence under section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017
During the pre-GST period from April. 2016 to June, 2017 the Respondent was paying tax @ 6% which was increased to 18% during the post-GST period and hence there was increase in the rate of tax and therefore, the Respondent is not liable to pay the benefit of tax reduction to his customers
NAA carefully considered the Report of the DGAP, submissions made by the Respondent and based on the record it is revealed that the above Applicants had purchased flats from the Respondent in his Green Court project situated in Sector 90, Gurugram, Haryana which was got approved by him under the Affordable Housing Policy-2013 of the Government of Haryana.
Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by him in his ‘Runwal My City’ Project in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus profiteered an amount of Rs. 3,20,49,507/- from his customers, hence he has committed an offence under section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of the above Section.
Respondent has not charged any GST from his buyers in case of both the supplies, one effected before the rate reduction and the other after that date. Since no GST was charged by the Respondent before and after the relevant date i.e. 01.01.2019, question of profiteering does not arise in this case.
Shri Hardev Singh Vs M/s Ocean Seven Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) As per the payment schedule, buyers had to pay 5% of the total amount at the time of booking, i.e. at the time of submission of the application for allotment and the first draw for allotment was held on 31.03.2017 during the […]
It cannot be considered as passing on of the benefit of additional ITC as the above discount has been given by the Respondents to set off the prices which he had increased and not on account of the benefit of ITC. Accordingly, the discount of Rs. 1,11,61,090/- claimed to have been paid to the house buyers by the Respondent cannot be held as the benefit of ITC and hence, the claims made by the Respondents in this behalf cannot be accepted.
Sh. Vasantbhai Bhikabhai Patel Vs M/s Shree Infra (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) We have carefully considered the Report of the DGAP, the submissions of the Respondent and all the documents placed on record. From the perusal of the DGAP’s Report it is revealed that the ratio of ITC to the taxable turnover during the pre-GST period […]
