Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.
Anti-Profiteering — In the instant case, applicant had alleged that the respondent had illegally charged Rs.10,61 460/- as GST on 90% of the basic sale price and Rs.44,227/- as Service Tax on 10% of the basic sale price on the sale of a built up house located in “Eldeco Country” project launched by the Respondent in Sonipat, Haryana. It was also alleged that the said ready-to-move-in villa was sold at a base price of Rs.98,28,312/- at the time of execution of the agreement on 15.07.2017, but the Respondent had charged GST on the base price of Rs.98,28,312/- and the benefit of input tax credit was not passed on to the Applicant by way of commensurate reduction in price after implementation of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017.
Held that—it is evident that though the Respondent did not deny that the benefit of ITC had accrued to him and he had to necessarily pass on the same to the home buyers as per the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, the benefit of ITC was passed on by him only in the month of February 2019. He had not only collected extra amount from the buyers but also compelled them to pay more GST on the additional amount realised. The above act of the Respondent appears to be deliberate and conscious violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Hence he has committed an offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore he is liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of the above section. Accordingly notice be issued to him to explain as to why penalty prescribed under Section 122 of the above Act read with Rule 133(3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him. — Varun Goel, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Indirect Taxes & Customs Vs. Eldeco Infrastructure & Properties Ltd.  12 TAXLOK.COM 041 (NAPA)