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 […]
Product Sanitary Napkin vide Notification No. 19/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 26.07.2018, w.e.f 27.07.2018 was exempted and attracted NIL rate of GST. However prior to 27.07.2018 this product attracted 12% GST with the benefit of ITC on the inputs and input services which was denied from 27.07.2018 as the product was exempted from levy of tax.
Haryana State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering examined the aforesaid application in its meeting held on 20.06.2018 and observed that the burden of tax had reduced in the GST era due to increased availability of input tax credit, which the builder should have passed on to the recipients in terms of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The DGAP has concluded that the benefit of additional ITC of 2.23% of the turnover has accrued to the Respondent which was required to be passed on to 1061 flat buyers who had entered into the agreements with the Respondent upto 30.06.2017.
Sh. Mohit Arora Vs M/s Lodha Developers Limited (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) It is established from the perusal of the above facts of the case that the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 have been contravened by the Respondents as they have profiteered an amount of Rs. 1,90,04,456/- inclusive of GST @ 12% […]
