Case Law Details
Shri Arjun Kumar Parwani Vs M/s. Signature Builders Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
On the basis of the facts of the present case it is clear that there had been no additional benefit of ITC to the Respondent and hence he is not required to pass on its benefit. The above Applicant has also quoted the reply given on FAQ No. 16 by the CBIC in his support perusal of which shows that it pertains to the clarification given on the reduced rates of tax on the construction services which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.04.2019. Since, the Respondent has opted to continue with the old tax rate of 8% the above clarification does not apply in the present case and any claim made on this ground by the above Applicant is untenable.
The Applicant No. 1 has also contended that the Respondent had opted to charge GST @ 8% and hence he should pass on the benefit of ITC to him @ 8% and there was no logic in paying GST at the above rate when he could have paid it @ 1%. This claim of the above Applicant is unreasonable as the Respondent is entitled to opt for paying GST @ 8% and charge it from his customers accordingly. As per the terms of the agreement the above Applicant is bound to pay the GST in addition to the sale consideration and hence he cannot claim that he should be passed on the benefit of ITC @ 8%. The implication of ITC has already been considered by the Respondent while fixing price of the flat post-GST and hence no benefit of ITC is due to the above Applicant. Therefore, the contention of the Applicant No. 1 made on this ground is not justified.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING APPELLATE AUTHORITY
1. A Report dated 30.10.2018 was furnished by the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) to this Authority, after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts mentioned in the above Report were that the Haryana State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering, vide the minutes of its meeting held on 20.06.2018 had forwarded an application dated 08.04.2018 filed by the Applicant No. 1 to the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Applicant No. 1 had stated in his application that the Respondent had resorted to profiteering in respect of supply of construction services related to purchase of Flat No. A5/907 in his project Solera-2 situated at Sector-107, Gurugram, Haryana. The Applicant No. 1 had claimed that as per the Affordable Housing Policy-2013 (AHP) of the Haryana Government, the basic sale price of the above flat in the pre-GST regime was fixed as Rs. 4000/- per square foot (sq. ft.) which was required to be recalibrated after implementation of the GST by passing on the additional benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) which had become available to the Respondent. The Applicant No. 1 had also supplied copies of the demand letters issued by the Respondent and of the correspondence exchanged between the Applicant No. 1 and the Respondent on this issue. The above application was considered by the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering in its meetings held on 07.08.2018 and 08.08.2018 and it was recommended to the DGAP for conducting detailed investigation.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
