Case Law Details
Deepak Naik Vs Prestige Estate Projects Ltd. (NAA)
We find this to be a fit case where the Respondent’s claim of having passed on the benefit to his recipients/homebuyers requires to be verified against third party evidence in the form of written acknowledgements receipts from the homebuyers evidencing the receipt of the benefit, including its quantum and also evidencing that the said benefit is in terms of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 which states that “Any reduction in the rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices”. Needles to state that the claim made by the Respondent of having passed on the benefit has to be supported by acknowledgements which the Respondent shall procure from the homebuyers alongwith their contact details i.e. e-mail & Phone/Mobile No., failing which his claim will have to be considered as not established. The Respondent shall submit the homebuyer wise evidence, as detailed above within a period of 30 days of this Order and the same shall then be verified by the DGAP. Accordingly, the matter is sent back to the DGAP for further investigation as per the provisions Section 171(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules 2017. This Authority directs the DGAP to verify the evidence submitted by the Respondent to evidence the passage of ITC benefit from the Respondent to the homebuyers and submit his Report, alongwith all the relied upon documents/evidence. The DGAP is accordingly directed to reinvestigate the above issue and furnish his Report under Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
It has also been observed that the Report of the DGAP is silent on the issue whether the Respondent has paid applicable interest to all the eligible recipients/flat buyers/customers or not. In view of the above, we direct the DGAP to investigate and verify whether applicable interest on the profiteered amount, which the Respondent has already claimed to have passed on to his customers/flat buyers, has been paid by him or not from the date from the above amount was profiteered till the date of passing on/payment, as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (b) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
1. The present Report dated 28.08.2020 has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after a detailed investigation, under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant No. 1 had filed an application dated 30.07.2019 (originally examined by the Karnataka State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering) under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 against the Respondent alleging profiteering in respect of construction service supplied by him. The Applicant No. 1 had stated that he had purchased a flat in the Respondent’s project “Prestige Lake Ridge” and had alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to him by way of commensurate reduction in the prices.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
