Case Law Details
Smt. Renu Mittal w/o Mool Chand Mittal Vs Anant Raj Ltd. (NAA)
The brief facts of the Report are that the Applicant No. 1 had filed application before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and submitted that she had purchased flat in the Respondent No. l’s Project “Maceo” but the Respondent No. 1 had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to her by way of commensurate reduction in prices of the flats, in terms of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The above reference was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering and upon being prima facie satisfied that the Respondent No. 1 had not passed on the benefit of ITC had forwarded the application of Applicant No. 1 with its recommendation to the DGAP for detailed investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
This Authority has carefully considered all the Reports filed by the DGAP, submissions of the Respondents and all other material placed on record. On examining the record, the observations of this Authority are as follows:-
a. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) vide its Order dated 24.08.2020 has sanctioned the demerger of the Respondent No. 1 (Demerged Company) and the Respondent No. 2 (Resulting Company) and the subject project i.e. ‘MACEO’ of the Respondent No. 1, against which complaint regarding non-passing on the benefit of ITC was made by the Applicant No. 1, was transferred to the Respondent No. 2.
b. The Respondent No. 1 during personal hearing via video conferencing held on 10.09.2020 requested to allow him to submit the details of his final ITC. Further, the Respondent No. 1 vide his emails dated 28.09.2020 and 13.10.2020 has stated that the actual figures of the reversal of ITC could not be produced because the corporate restructuring through demerger of the Respondent No. l’s company was underway. The details of the reversal of ITC could only be produced post registration of the new entity and subsequent transfer of ITC from the erstwhile entity to the demerged entity. Though the Respondent No. 1 was provided adequate opportunities to submit the actual figures of ITC vide this Authority’s Order dated 25.09.2020, 12.10.2020, 23.10.2020, 04.12.2020, 18.12.2020, 15.01.2021 and 12.02.2021, however, till date the Respondent No. 1 has not submitted the complete details of ITC. If the Respondent No. 1 or the Respondent No. 2 submits the correct details of ITC, the profiteered amount may change. Therefore, there is need to verify the above claim of the Respondent No. 1 or Respondent No. 2 to arrive at the correct findings on the above issue. Accordingly, the DGAP is directed to further investigate it and submit Report on the same.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
