Case Law Details
Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Elan Ltd. (NAA)
DGAP has carefully examined the Report of the DGAP and it has been observed that as per the Table ‘A’ of the Report all the relevant events for the project ‘Epic‘ took place in GST regime and the Respondent had not availed any CENVAT/ITC, related to ‘EPIC’ project, in pre-GST regime and that the Respondent neither raised any demand nor received any advance for this project in Pre-GST regime. Therefore, there was no pre-GST tax rate or ITC structure which could be compared with the post-GST tax rate and ITC structure and therefore, the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 were not applicable against the Respondent’s project “Epic”. In view of the facts and records/documents cited and considered by the DGAP in its report dated 24.03.2021, the Authority concurs with the findings of the DGAP that the provisions of section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 does not get attracted in the present case for the said project “Epic” and for said period 01.07.2017 to 30.11.2020.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
1. This Authority vide its Final Order No. 85/2020 dated 11.12.2020 for the Respondent’s project “Mercado” directed to pass on an amount of Rs. 2,44,80,835/- to the Applicant (Sh. Mool Chand Mittal) and other 228 commercial shop buyers along with the interest @ 18% per annum.
2. As the Respondent himself admitted that he had been constructing one more project namely “Epic”, therefore, the Authority vide the said Order No. 85/2020 dated 11.12.2020, taking suo moto cognizance, directed the DGAP to also investigate the project “Epic” being executed by the Respondent and submit his Report under Rule 129 (6) stating whether the Respondent is liable to pass on the benefit of ITC to the buyers of the above project and their entitlement thereof. The excerpt of the said Order is reproduced below:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
