Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Milan Pankaj Kothari Vs Sri Dutt Constructions (NAA)
Appeal Number : Case No. 66/2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 31/08/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Milan Pankaj Kothari Vs Sri Dutt Constructions (NAA)

The brief facts of the present case are that an application was filed before the Maharashtra State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017 by the Applicant No. 1 alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purchase of a Flat No. 303, Wing-D, in the Project Garden Avenue K-4, Virar West, Palghar, Maharashtra. The Applicant No. 1 alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to him by way of commensurate reduction in the price.

The only issue to be examined is as to whether there was any net benefit of ITC with the introduction of GST. On this issue, the DGAP in his Report, has stated that ITC as a percentage of the turnover which was available to the Respondent during the pre-GST period (April-2016 to June-2017) was 1.03% and during the post-GST period (July-2017 to March-2019), it was 0.63%. On this basis, the DGAP has concluded his Report with the findings that the Respondent had neither been benefited from additional ITC nor there had been a reduction in the tax rate in the post-GST period for the Project “Garden Avenue K-4”.

The Authority also finds the Applicant No. 1 vide his above submissions has also stated that he has satisfied with the findings in the DGAP’s Investigation Report dated 29.01.2021.

In view of our above facts the Authority has no reason to differ from the Report of DGAP and we therefore agree with his findings since there was no reduction in the rate of tax nor there was increased additional benefit on account of ITC. Hence, the provisions of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 are not liable to be Invoked in this case. The Authority concludes that the instant case does not fall under the ambit of Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as the Respondent has neither been benefited from additional ITC nor has there been a reduction in the tax rate in the post-GST period.

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
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031