Case Law Details
Director-General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Friends Land Developers (NAA)
The present Report dated 01.07.2020 has been received from the Director-General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after a detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that this Authority, vide Order No. 62/2019 dated 27.11.2019, directed the DGAP under Rule 133(5) (a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 to further investigate the project “Anandam Square”, which the Respondent had been constructing during the period, for violation of provisions of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The said direction was based on the records submitted by the Respondent before this Authority, in the course of proceedings pertaining to their project “Palm Wood Royale Gulmohar Green” wherein it had been established that the Respondent had availed the benefit of Input Tax Credit and was required to pass on the benefit thereof in terms of section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Thus, there were sufficient grounds to believe that the Respondent was liable to pass on benefits to buyers of this project too, as envisaged under the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The matter was investigated by the DGAP in accordance with the aforementioned order of this Authority.
This Authority has carefully considered all the submissions filed by the DGAP, the Respondent, and the other material placed on record and the arguments advanced by the Respondent. On examining the various submissions, the findings of this Authority are as follows:-
i. With respect to the contention of the Respondent that “the DGAP investigation report dated 01.07.2020 was incomplete on account of non-consideration of all submissions of the Respondent submitted in reply to the Notice for investigation”, the Authority finds that the Respondent had not reduced the base price commensurate with the benefit of ITC, post introduction of GST. The Respondent continued to maintain the identical price for these shops. Hence, the above contention of the Respondent cannot be accepted.
ii. With respect to the contention of the Respondent that “DGAP’s investigation Report was based on unrealistic assumptions” the Authority finds that as per the shop buyers list submitted by the Respondent, Sh. Sunil Kumar Dhupar booked shop no. G-20 on 27.10.2014 for Rs. 31,25,000/- and Smt. Janak Taneja booked shop G-17 on 22.07.2019 at the same price as of G-20. Thus, it is found that the Respondent had not reduced the agreement price and therefore, the Respondent’s claim that ITC benefit has been incorporated at agreement level is not corroborated with the data submitted by the Respondent. Hence, this contention of the Respondent is not acceptable.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
