Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Sh. Jayesh V Rathod Vs Savaliya Procon (NAA)
Appeal Number : Case No. 10/2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 12/05/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Sh. Jayesh V Rathod Vs Savaliya Procon (NAA)

Respondent has profiteered by an amount of Rs. 85,77,419/- during the period of investigation i.e. 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2020. The Authority determined amount of Rs. 85,77,419/- (including 12% GST) under section 133(1) that has been profiteered by the Respondent from his home buyers (as per the list mentioned below), including Applicant No. 1, and shall be refunded by him along with interest @18% thereon, from the date when the above amount was profiteered by him till the date of such payment, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (b) of the GCST Rules 2017.

We also order that the profiteering amount of Rs. 85,77,419/-shall be passed on along with the interest @ 18% to be passed on to the home/shop buyer from the date when the above amount was profiteered by him till the date of such payment by the Respondent within a period of 3 months from the date receipt of this order. The amounts to be refunded to each individual home/shop buyers is as per Annexure ‘A’ to this order. Such amount shall be refunded with appropriate interest @ 18% as ordered above.

FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY

1. The present Report dated 29.12.2020 had been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. On receipt of the reference from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, a Notice under Rule 129 of the Rules was issued by the DGAP on 31.07.2020, calling upon the Respondent to reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of Input Tax Credit had not been passed on to the Applicant No. 1 by way of commensurate reduction in price 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 supporting documents. Vide the said Notice, the Respondent was also given an opportunity to inspect the non-confidential evidences/information furnished by the Applicant No. 1 during the period 10.08.2020 to 12.08.2020. However, the Respondent did not avail of this opportunity.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031