The Respondent has computed the interim GST benefit by estimating taxes which were a cost to him in the pre-GST regime. We find that it is a methodology based on estimated or assumed figures which is not accurate and we agree with the methodology adopted by the DGAP while determining profiteering.
T. R. Ravichandran, RP Vs The Asst. Commissioner (ST) (NCLT) Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code having categorically mentioned that IBC will have over riding effect on all other laws which are in contravention to the provisions of the IBC, RI cannot raise an objection saying since no provision has been made in […]
Smt. Mamta Aggarwal Vs GLS Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Authority determines the profiteered amount as Rs. 4,35,53,927/- (inclusive of applicable GST @ 12% or 8%) for the 1075 residential units for the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 as per the details furnished by the DGAP vide Annexure-20 of his above Report. The above […]
No profiteering found in Sanjay Devan Vs Vatika Ltd. case. DGAP reports no ITC benefit or tax rate reduction. Section 171 not applicable.
Sh. Kavi Mahajan Vs M/s Heeranandani Realtors Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Respondent has benefited from the additional ITC to the extent of 10.66% of the turnover during the period from July, 2017 to August, 2918 and hence the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 have been contravened by the Respondent as […]
Sh. Rohit Singh Vs Friends Land Developers (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) During the pre-GST period the Respondent has availed CENVAT credit on the Service Tax during the pre-GST period from April. 2016 to June. 2017 amounting to Rs 52,11,867/-, collected an amount of Rs. 12,31,99.617/- from his customers as turnover, has sold an area of 1,35,655 […]
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
