Case Law Details
Rajeev Goyal Vs Prateek Infra Projects India Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)
The Authority finds that the Applicant No. 1 has alleged fraud and forgery on the part of the Respondent and fault in calculations of the profiteered amount, saleable area and the total turnover of the Respondent by the DGAP for the Project Prateek Edifice. The Applicant No. 1 vide the said Affidavit has stated that he and his cousin Sh. Vikas Agarwal had simultaneously booked Flat No. C-1105 & 1106 respectively on same date and on identical terms and conditions and for same consideration as Copies of booking forms of the Applicant No. 1 and Sh. Vikas Agarwal annexed with the said Affidavit. According to the Applicant No. 1, all payments by the Applicant No. 1 and Sh. Vikas Agarwal were made in the same manner and during the same time period and copies of demands raised as on March 2016 were submitted by the Applicant No. 1 with his Affidavit. Hence, as per the said Applicant, the GST benefit to be paid to the Applicant No. 1 and Sh. Vikas Agarwal ought to have been the same. However, as per the DGAP’s Report Sh. Vikas Agarwal had been passed on GST benefit of Rs. 11,600/-, while the Applicant No. 1 was paid of Rs. 16,419/-. Said amount of GST benefit passed on to the Applicant No. 1 and Sh. Vikas Agarwal has been worked out on the basis of difference in amount payable at possession as per agreement. Therefore, in view of the above, the Applicant No. 1 requested for Annexures 5 to 14, 17, 18 & 19 to the DGAP’s report stating that the Respondent has supplied wrong information during the investigation to the DGAP which has adversely affected the DGAP’s calculations and the Applicants’ claim of benefit of ITC.
The Authority has carefully considered the Report furnished by the DGAP, the submissions made by the Respondent and the other material placed on record. On examining the various submissions, the observations of this Authority are as follows:-
a. The Applicant No. 1 in his sworn affidavit made a statement that the Applicant No. 1 and his cousin Sh. Vikas Agarwal simultaneously booked Flat No. C-1105 & 1106 respectively on the same date and on identical terms and conditions and for the same consideration. To support his claim the Applicant No. 1 has submitted copies of booking forms of the Applicant No. I and Sh. Vikas Agarwal as annexed Annexure 3 with the said Affidavit along with copies of demand letters as annexed Annexure 5 with the same. Therefore, in view of the above, the Authority finds that the Respondent has submitted his set of data/information on the basis of which the DGAP has determined the profiteered amount in the present case, whereas the Applicant No. 1 vide his sworn affidavit has provided his set of documents/information. Therefore, the DGAP is directed to verify which of these documents are correct/authentic and determine the authentic records/documents/data and calculate the profiteered amount in respect of the Applicant No. 1 & 2 and other home buyers/recipients in the Project “Prateek Edifice” based upon such records/data/documents as found to be correct and authentic by the DGAP in accordance with law.
b. The Applicant No. 1 vide the said Affidavit has also sworn and stated that in Table ‘A’ of Para 18 at Page 9 of the DGAP’s Report, total saleable area in the Project has been wrongly claimed to be 12,19,140 Sq. Ft., while actual saleable area as per the declaration made under the RERA by the Respondent is 12,39,814 Sq. Ft. The Applicant No.1 has attached detailed calculation sheet as Annexure-1 to his submissions. Further the Applicant No. 1 has stated that total saleable area in the Project as per declaration filed under the applicable Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010 was 12,79,980.50 Sq. Ft and submitted a copy of declaration annexed therewith. As the claim/plea of the Applicant No. 1 is based upon the data of other statutory Authorities like RERA or the said UP Apartment (P, C & 0) Act, 2010 etc. Therefore, the authenticity of the records/documents/data provided by the Respondent needs to be re-verified thoroughly in accordance with law. The saleable area of the Respondent considered for calculation of profiteered amount is to be based upon his RERA documents as is the practice followed by the DGAP. Therefore, the DGAP is directed to recalculate the saleable area based upon his RERA documents/registration of the Respondent.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
