Case Law Details
Sumit Mansingka Vs E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Facts of the case:
The brief facts of the present case are that a complaint dated 18.12.2017 was filed before the Uttar Pradesh State level Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering by the Applicant No.1 alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purchase of a flat in the Respondent’s project “The Jewel of Noida” situated at Plot No. 14, Eco City, Sector-75, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. The Applicant No. 1 had alleged that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to him by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the flat purchased by him on introduction of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017. The Uttar Pradesh State Screening Committee examined the said application and observed that the Respondent had not passed on the appropriate benefit of Input Tax Credit to the Applicant No. 1 as the additional Input Tax Credit available to the Respondent should have been apportioned against the instalments towards the price of the flat. The Uttar Pradesh State Screening Committee opined that, prima facie, there was contravention of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and forwarded the said application with his recommendation, to the Standing Committee on Anti- profiteering for further action, in terms of Rule 128 of the Rules. The said reference was then examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, in its meeting held on 13.12.2018, the minutes of which were received by the DGAP on 07.01.2019, whereby it was decided to forward the same to the DGAP, to conduct a detailed investigation in the matter.
Held by NAA:
It is clear to us that in this case, including the computation of profiteering in the two projects, need to be revisited by the DGAP through a thorough investigation, keeping in view the above directions of the Authority that project 1 and project 2 are two separate projects and hence the ITC/turnover of the two cannot be clubbed for the purpose of calculation of profiteering. Needless to say that the entire computation of profiteering will need to be reworked out afresh accordingly, after due consideration of the details/ records/ information that has been submitted by the Respondent before this Authority. NAA find that further investigation is required in the present case in line with this order, covering therein all the issues in their entirety. Accordingly, the DGAP is directed to reinvestigate the matter and furnish his report in terms of Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 within 02 months from the receipt of this order.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
