Case Law Details
Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Shree Infra (NAA)
We find that the Respondent had three Phases viz. Phase-I, Phase—II and Phase-III comprising building Nos. A-J-K-L-M, B1-B2-H1-H2-I and C102-D1-D2-E1-E2-F1-F2 respectively in “River View Heights” Out of these three Phases, Phase-I was completed by August 2014, which is well before the implementation of GST and Phase-III had not been started uptil 27.08.2020. Further, in respect of Phase-II, it is on record that, it has already been investigated vide Order No. 51/2019 dated 21.10.2019 passed by this Authority under Rule 133 of the CGST Rules 2017 read with section 171 of the CGST Act 2017, vide which profiteered amount of Rs. 2,13,468/-(including GST @12%) for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.10.2018, has been confirmed in relation to 26 home buyers.
We find no grounds, in the present case, to differ from the Report of the DGAP. Since the said Phase-I was not in existence in the GST period and the said Phase-III was yet to be started/registered as on 27.08.2020 hence, the Anti-Profiteering provisions under Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 are not applicable on the said Phase-I and Phase-III of “River View Heights” of the Respondent.
Given our above findings, we conclude that the instant case does not fall under the ambit of the Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Accordingly, the present proceedings ordered vide para 18 of the Order No. 51/2019 dated 21.10.2019 stand concluded and the Report dated 27.08.2020 by the DGAP is accepted.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
“….not applies to projects NOT IN EXISTENCE in GST period” < quite confusing ; rather has the effect of terribly compounding the numerous areas of already prevailing confusion ?!?!?!
Look up ALSO the Post https://taxguru.in/goods-and-service-tax/anti-profiteering-provisions-not-apply-absence-reduction-tax-rate.html/comment-page-1/ in order to get a true grip of the real point of controversy.
Meanwhile, prima facie, the headlines of the subject Article does not bring out the fact / intent behind; in that, to one's understanding, the Anti – Profiteering Provisions are/must be , in terms of the scheme, applicable to all the "ongoing construction projects" as meant /interpreted# and coming within the purview of the RERA Code !?!
#https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/sc-upholds-application-of-rera-to-real-estate-projects-ongoing-at-act-s-commencement-14460.asp
OVER to, -if endowed with the requisite competence and expertise, -the 'experts' for venturing further deliberation.
CAUTION : For a self appraisal of one's own competence to embark on such an arduous task as incited, perhaps, it should suffice, if only the Definition Section in the RERA Code is mindfully gone through for noting the mutually conflicting and defeating language used therein !?! 😮
courtesy
(out of sheer compassion for professional co-travellers)