Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Sh. Shivam Agarwal Vs Gaursons Realtech Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)
Appeal Number : Case No.. 38/2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 07/07/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Sh. Shivam Agarwal Vs Gaursons Realtech Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Keeping in view the self-admission of the Respondent in which he has stated that he is liable to pass on the benefit of additional ITC as per the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act, the above projects are required to be investigated as there are sufficient reasons to believe that the Respondent is required to pass on the benefit of additional ITC to the eligible house buyers in respect of the these projects. This Authority cannot refuse to examine and take suo moto cognizance of the benefit of ITC which the Respondent is apparently liable to pass on to the buyers of the above projects as per the provisions of Section 171 (2) of the CGST Act, 2017 once it has been brought to its notice. This is in consonance with the order dated 10.02.2020 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 969/2020, in the case of M/s Nestle India Ltd. & another v. Union of India & others in which the Hon’ble Court has observed that:-

“We, however, make it clear that this interim order shall not come in the way of the National Anti Profiteering Authority in cases where if has suo moto taken action,” (Emphasis supplied)

Accordingly, the DG AF’ is directed to investigate the issue of passing on the benefit of additional ITC in respect of the above projects and submit his Report in terms of Rule 133 (5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 which reads as under:-

“(5)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (4), where upon receipt of the report of the Director General of Anti-profiteering referred to in sub-rule (6) of rule 129, the Authority has reasons to befieve that there has been contravention of the provisions of section 171 in respect of goods or services or both other than those covered in the said report, it may, tar reasons to be recorded in writing, within the time limit specified in sub-rule (1), direct the Director General of Anti-profiteering to cause investigation or inquiry with regard to such other goods or services or both, in accordance with the provisions of the At and these rules.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031