Case Law Details
Shri Kapil Dev Sharma Vs Director General of Anti-Profiteering (NAA)
The DGAP has further reported that Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 came into play in the event where there was a reduction in the rate of tax or there was an increase in the benefit of ITC. In the present case, since the project itself was launched after implementation of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, there was no pre-GST tax rate or ITC availability that could be compared with the post GST tax rate and ITC, to determine whether there was any benefit that was required to be passed on by way of reduced price.
Further, the DGAP has concluded that in view of the aforementioned findings, it appeared that Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 has not been contravened by the Respondent in the present case.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING APPELLATE AUTHORITY
1. The present Report dated 06.12.2019 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 20.02.2019 (Annexure-1) stating that the Respondent had resorted to profiteering in respect of the supply of construction services related to the purchase of Flat No. Tower-3/1602 in the Respondent’s project “Hero Homes”, Sector-104, Dwarka Expressway, 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.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
