Case Law Details
Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Nani Resorts and Floriculture Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)
DGAP has verified that the projects ROF Aalayas Phase-II, Sector 102, Gurugram and ROF Amaltas, Sector-92, Gurugram were registered on 27.05.2019 and ROF ALANTE on 09.12.2019 in Haryana RERA and the first booking in the above projects was started in the month of June, 2019. The DGAP has further found that the projects ” ROF Aalayas Phase-11, Sector 102, Gurugram”, “ROF Amaltas, Sector-92, Gurugram” and “ROF ALANTE” had been launched in the post-GST regime and there was no price history of the units sold in the pre-GST regime that could be compared with the post-GST base prices to establish whether there was any profiteering by the Respondent or not. In terms of the provisions of the RERA Act, bookings in the project could not happen till the registration was obtained. Since the registration was obtained for the subject projects post the introduction of Goods and Services Tax only, the provisions of Section 171 dealing with Anti-profiteering could not be made applicable to the said projects in the view of the fact that there was no additional ITC that had been made available to the Respondent, which was relevant for establishing any allegation of profiteering. It is clear from the DGAP’s Report that the Respondent had launched the subject projects in the post-GST regime and there were no demands raised by the Respondent with respect to these projects in the pre-GST regime. The registration and approval of the projects and receipt of the payments had taken place in the post-GST regime and hence, there was no pre-GST tax rate or ITC which could be compared with the post-GST tax rate and ITC. On this basis, the DGAP has reported that the Respondent had neither benefited from additional ITC nor had there been a reduction in the tax rate in the post-GST period and therefore it did not qualify to be a case of profiteering.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
1. The present Report dated 28.08.2020 has been received from 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 DGAP was directed by Order No. 52/2019 dated 21.10.2019 passed by this Authority under rule 133(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 in the matter of Sandeep Kumar & Ors versus M/s Nani Resorts and Floriculture Pvt. Ltd., to conduct investigation to find out whether the Respondent had availed the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) which was required to be passed on to the eligible recipients as per the provisions of section 171(1) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 in respect of three other projects namely ROF Aalayas of 5 Acres, Sector-102, Gurugram, ROF Aalayas Phase-II, Sector-102, Gurugram and “ROF” Amaltas, Sector-92, Gurugram.
2. Accordingly, the DGAP issued Notice to the Respondent on 04.11.2019 under Rule 129 (3) of the above Rules, calling upon him to reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of ITC had not been passed on to the buyers by way of commensurate reduction in prices and if so, to suo moto determine the quantum thereof and indicate the same in his reply to the Notice as well as to furnish all the supporting documents. The DGAP has reported that the period covered by the current investigation was from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019 and the time limit to complete the investigation was extended up to 30.11.2020 by this Authority, in terms of Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
