Case Law Details
Mr. Prasanth Nandulamattam Vs M/s Bhartiya City Developers Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
1. The present Report dated 25.02.2019 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 present case are that the Karnataka State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering, vide the minutes of its meeting held on 29.06.2018 had forwarded an application dated 31.05.2018 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 alleged in his application that the Respondent had increased the price of the flat after the introduction of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by way of commensurate reduction in the price in respect of supply of construction service to him related to the purchase of Flat No. C1308, Tower-C, in the Respondent’s project “Nikoo Homes II”, situated in Bhartiya City, Chokkanahalli, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, Karnataka.
2. The Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering vide the minutes of its meetings held on 07.08.2018 & 08.08.2018 had referred the above application to the DGAP for investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 to determine whether the benefits of reduction in the rate of tax or ITC had been passed on by the Respondent to his recipients or not. The application was sent to the DGAP along with the details submitted by the Applicant No. 1 viz. the duly filled in Form APAF-1, copies of intimation letters & receipts, copies of Agreement to Sell and Agreement for Construction, copies of the e-mails sent to the Respondent requesting to pass on the benefit of ITC, cost break-up details of the purchased flat and copies of Aadhar Card & PAN Card as proof of identity.
3. The DGAP in his present Report has stated that perusal of the application showed that the Applicant No. 1 had booked a flat with the Respondent on 16.03.2016 in the pre-GST period and the following demands were raised on the Applicant No. 1 on account of the purchase of the flat by the Respondent, the details of which are furnished in Table-A’ below:-
Table- ‘A’
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
