Case Law Details
Sh. Sibi John Vs. Logix City Developers Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)
1. The present Report dated 27.03.2020 has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) on 13.05.2020 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 Applicants No. 1 had filed an application alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purchase of Flat No. A-804, Tower-A, in the project ‘Blossom Zest’ situated at Sector 143, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The Applicant No. 1 had alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of input tax credit (ITC) by way of commensurate reduction in price after implementation of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, in terms of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Applicant No. 1 had also submitted copies of the demand letters along with his application form in the format APAF.
2. The Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering had examined the application filed against the Respondent and it had referred the same to the DGAP for conducting detailed investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 to ascertain whether the benefits of reduction in the rate of tax or ITC had been passed on by the Respondent to his recipients.
3. Thereafter, the DGAP on receipt of the reference from the Standing Committee on Anti Profiteering, had issued notice to the Respondent on 08.07.2019 under Rule 129 (3) of the above Rules, calling upon the Respondent to reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of ITC had not been passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices and if so, to suo-moto determine the quantum thereof and indicate the same in his reply to the notice as well as furnish all the supporting documents. The Respondent was also given opportunity to inspect the non-confidential evidence/information furnished by the Applicant No. 1 during the period from 15.07.2019 to 17.07.2019. However, the Respondent did not avail of the said opportunity. The Applicant No. 1 was also given an opportunity to inspect the non-confidential evidence/reply furnished by the Respondent on 15.01.2020 and 16.01.2020. The Applicant’s father Shri John Daniel inspected the documents on 14.01.2020 on behalf of the Applicant No. 1.
4. The DGAP in his above Report has stated that the period covered by the current investigation was from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2019. Also, the time limit to complete the investigation was extended upto 27.03.2020 by this Authority vide its Order dated 24.12.2019 in terms of Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
