Case Law Details
Rahul Gautam Vs Himalaya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)
Facts of the Case:
The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant No. 1 had filed an application dated 16.10.2018 before the Haryana State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 (2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and submitted that he had purchased a flat in the Respondent’s project “Himalaya Pride” situated at Plot No. 10-B, Techzone-IV, Greater Noida (West), UP-201306 and alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of input tax credit to him by way of commensurate reduction in price, in terms of Section 171 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Haryana State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering on prima facie having satisfied itself that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC, had forwarded the said application with its recommendation to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering for further action, in terms of Rule 128 of the above Rules.
Held by NAA:
The Respondent further claimed that he had passed on the benefit of Input credit of GST of Rs. 2,94,078/- (Rs. 4,70,496 (GST was higher than the amount of Rs. 2,73,653/- computed by the DGAP and accepted by the Applicant No. 1. He also contended that an amount of Rs. 3,41,963/- was given as the discount in addition to reduction in GST rate of 7,5% to the Applicant No. 1. However, upon perusal of the annexure 1 of the Respondent’s submissions dated 20.08.2019, it is revealed that he himself had computed an amount of Rs. 3,44,131/- as the ITC/Discount as per demand letter/contract for the Applicant No. 1. Further, from the perusal of the Applicant No. 1’s submissions dated 20.08.2019, it is observed from the receipts that an amount of Rs. 2,36,130/- has been passed on as ITC rebate (SGST and CGST) by the Respondent which contradicts his claim of Rs. 3,41,9631- as the discount in addition to reduction in GST rate of 7.5% was given to the Applicant No. 1. However, the possibility of passing on some ITC benefit to the Applicant No. 1 can not be completely ruled out and the same needs to be verified. Thus, NAA find it imperative that the mathematical calculations of profiteering are reinvestigated by the DGAP. Based upon the above facts, the present Report filed by the DGAP cannot be accepted and hence the case is remanded to him for further investigation as per the provisions of Rule 133(4).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
