Case Law Details
Case Name : Shri Diwakar Bansal Vs M/s Horizon Projects Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
National Anti-Profiteering Authority
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Shri Diwakar Bansal Vs M/s Horizon Projects Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
The Respondent has also submitted that vide Notification No. 3/2019-Central Tax (Rate) dated 29.03.2019 the rate of tax on the construction service had been changed without benefit of ITC and any such benefit availed by a registered person would have to be reversed in case he opted for the new rate of tax and therefore, all the credit availed w.e.f. 01.07.2019 could not be passed on to the customers and it might also result in excess release of the benefit. However, the above plea of the Respondent is ...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Latest episode in…
Q
12. THE RESPONDENT HAD CONTENDED BEFORE THE DGAP THAT NEITHER THE GST ACT NOR THE RULES HAD PROVIDED ANY MECHANISM FOR COMPUTATION OF THE ABOVE BENEFITS, IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH, NATURE OF HIS BUSINESS WAS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPUTING THE RELEVANT BENEFITS. However, the DGAP has stated that the provisions of Section 171 were very clear which provided that any reduction in the rate of tax or the benefit of ITC had to be passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in the prices, which implied that every person who was a recipient of supply of goods or services must get such benefit and the same had to be calculated for every supply of goods or services. It was also for the suppliers of the goods and services to determine the benefit to be passed on by reducing their prices.
UQ
REaction: FONT < The builder's stance so taken is, in essence, prima faicie phoney; patently tantamount to re-writing and / or over-writing what is clearly envisaged / mandated by the law; by deliberately acting in breach of the very legal concept of ITC intended to prevent the otherwise objectionable 'cacading effect'. Premised so, the only alternative/ option left to builder is not to decide and adopt the old rate of 12 % with ITC, but , instead, adopt the reduced rate of 5% without ITC.
The DGAP has rightly / justifiably rejected the builder's stance; as otherwise builder would have had the unintended benefit of having the proverbial cake(in hand) even after having eaten it !
If critically viewed, does not the builder's stance have the consequence of an unjust enrichment of the government as well ?!
Cr. refer Pr,. posts
OVER to…