Latest GST Judgments

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library

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.

Anti-profiteering— The brief facts of the present case are that the DGAP vide order No. 78/2019 dated 24.12.2019 passed by this Authority in the matter of M/s Caroa properties llp versus Potnoor Naveen was directed under rule 133 (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 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 two others projects namely “Golf meadows Godrej City Phase II” and “EWS”. 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 project in the view of the fact that there was no additional ITC that had been utilized by him, which was relevant for establishing any allegation of profiteering. Further, the Commencement Certificate of the above projects had been issued post-implementation of GST. It is clear from the DGAP Report that the Respondent had launched the subject projects in the post-GST regime and there wasn't any demand raised by the Respondent in the pre-GST regime. Held that— The registration and approval of the project and receipt of the payments had taken place in the post-CST 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.