Case Law Details
Paramjeet Rathee Vs Supertech Limited (NAA)
The Applicant No. 1 has further contended that while calculating profiteering, the DGAP has not considered the type of sale consideration i.e. Subvention Plan or CLP Plan, pre-GST impact of ITC on cost, Cost Sheet Proforma for Goods/Services pre-GST and post-GST, Summary of purchased materials/imputs versus Construction Stages and the Project report submitted to RERA. The above claim of the Applicant is not sustainable because to determine the quantum of profiteering, the ratio of ITC to the turnover during the pre-GST (April-2016 to June-2017) and post-GST (July-2017 to March-2019) periods has been compared by the DGAP as per the data submitted by the Respondent and it was found that the percentage of ITC availed by the Respondent in the post-GST period was very low in comparison to pre-GST period and hence, provisions of Section 171 of the Act have not been contravened in the present case.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING APPELLATE AUTHORITY
1. The present Report dated 30.08.2019 has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after a detailed investigation under Rule 129(6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 1 had filed an application dated 03.07.2018 (Annexure-1) before the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering under Rule 128 of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The Applicant No. 1 had stated in his application that the Respondent had resorted to profiteering in respect of the supply of construction services related to the purchase of Flat J-66C, in the Respondent’s project “Officer Enclave”, Sector-2, Sohna Road, Gurugram. The Applicant No. 1 had also alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the apartment purchased by him, on implementation of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017.
2. The said application was examined by Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering in its meeting held On 11.03.2019 and forwarded with its recommendation to the DGAP for detailed investigation under Rule 129(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 to investigate whether the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax or ITC had been passed on by the Respondent to his recipients. The DGAP had received the minutes of the meeting of the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering on 27.03.2019.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
