Case Law Details
Shashank Thakar Vs Alton Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)
1. A Report dated 14.06.2019 was received from the Applicant No. 6 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the Report were that the Applicant No. 1 to 3 had filed applications before the Haryana State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering and the Applicant No. 4 and 5 had filed applications before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and submitted that they had purchased flats in the Respondent’s project “Aangan” and alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to them by way of commensurate reduction in prices of the flats, in terms of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Haryana State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering on prima facie having satisfied itself that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC had forwarded the applications of Applicant No. 1, 2 and 3 with its recommendation to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering for further action, in terms of Rule 128 (1) of the above Rules.
2. The aforesaid references were examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, in its meetings held on 27.12.2018, 11.03.2019 and 11.04.2019 and it had forwarded all the 5 applications to the DGAP for detailed investigation under Rule 129 (1).
3. The DGAP on receipt of the applications and supporting documents from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering had issued Notice under Rule 129 (3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 on 15.01.2019 calling upon the Respondent to reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of ITC had not been passed on to the above Applicants by way of commensurate reduction in prices charged from them and if so, to suo moto determine the quantum thereof and indicate the same in his reply to the Notice as well as furnish all supporting documents. Vide the above mentioned notice dated 15.01.2019, the Respondent was also given opportunity to inspect the non-confidential evidence/information furnished by the above Applicants during the period from 21.01.2019 to 23.01.2019, which he had availed. Vide email dated 22.05.2019, the above Applicants were also given an opportunity to inspect the non-confidential documents/replies furnished by the Respondent on 24.05.2019, 27.05.2019 & 28.05.2019, which they did not avail of.
4. The DGAP has also reported that the period covered by his investigation was from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 and the time limit to complete the investigation was extended up to 06.07.2019 by this Authority, vide its order dated 19.03.2019 in terms of Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
