Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Sh. Rohit Singh Vs M/s Friends Land Developers (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
Appeal Number : Case No. 62/2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 27/11/2019
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Sh. Rohit Singh Vs Friends Land Developers (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

During the pre-GST period the Respondent has availed CENVAT credit on the Service Tax during the pre-GST period from April. 2016 to June. 2017 amounting to Rs 52,11,867/-, collected an amount of Rs. 12,31,99.617/- from his customers as turnover, has sold an area of 1,35,655 sq. ft. relevant to the above turnover during the above period, has availed relevant amount of ITC of Rs. 34.59,066/- and accordingly. the ratio of CENVAT to the ITC was 2.81% during the pre-GST period in respect of his ‘Gulmoher Green’ project. It is also apparent as per the above Table that the ITC available to the Respondent in the post-GST period from July, 2017 to September, 2018 was Rs. 1,93,94,105/- and his turnover was Rs 24,84,23,360/-. He has also sold an area of 1,54,365 sq. ft., relevant to the above turnover during the above period. The proportionate ITC availed by the Respondent was Rs. 1,46,46,988/- on the basis of which ratio of ITC to turnover comes to 5.90%. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the Respondent has benefited from the additional benefit of ITC to the tune of 3.09% (5 90%-2.81%) of the turnover which he is required to pass on to his customers as per the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act. Since the above figures of ITC and turnover have been taken form the Returns filed by the Respondent himself and the figures of sold area have been supplied by the Respondent himself, the same cannot be disputed by the Respondent and can be relied upon and accordingly. the above computations are held to be correct.Therefore, the profiteered amount is determined as Rs.85,97,436/- which includes GST @12% on the base profiteered amount of Rs. 76,76,282/- as per the revised Annexure-14 of the Report dated 30.05.2019 for the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018 in terms of Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules. 2017. The Respondent is also held to have profiteered an amount of Rs 2.01.472/- from the Applicant No. 1 including the GST.

FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY

1. This Report dated 03.04.2019 and the supplementary Report dated 30.05.2019 has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that vide his application dated 06.04.2018 submitted to the Uttar Pradesh State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 (2) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Applicant No. 1 had alleged profiteering by the Respondent while he had purchased Flat no. 6B, Tower No. 16, in the Respondent’s project “Palm Wood Royal Gulmohar Green” situated at Plot No. 95, Loni Road, Opp. Hindon Airbase, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad-201201. The above Applicant had also alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) although he had charged GST @ 12% w.e.f. 01.07.2017 from him. The above Committee had examined the application and after its prima facie satisfaction that the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, had sent the same with its recommendation for necessary action to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering on 03.08.2018 as per the provisions of Rule 128 (2) of the CGST Rules, 2017. This application was duly considered by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering in its meeting held on 06.09.2018 and was referred to the DGAP for conducting detailed investigation on the allegations levelled by the  Applicant No. 1.

2. The DGAP has stated in his Report dated 03.04.2019 that the above flat was booked by the Applicant No. 1 on 19.01.2017 before the GST had come in to force w.e.f. 01.07.2019 and the following demands had been raised on him by the Respondent as per the Table given below:-

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.

One Comment

Leave a Comment

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

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031