Since there had been no reduction in the rate of tax or benefit of additional ITC to the Respondent the provisions of the above Section are not attracted in the present case and the allegation of profiteering are not established against the Respondent.
Anti-profiteering- The brief facts of the present case are that Applicant No. 1 had filed an application under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017 alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of the supply of purchase of Flat No. 7-405 in Tower 7 in Respondent’s real estate project “Themillenia 37d” situated at Sector-37D, Gurugram, Haryana.
Since there is no basis for comparison of ITC available before and after 01.07.2017, the Respondent was not required to recalibrate the price of the flat due to additional benefit of ITC. Hence, the allegations of the Applicant No.1 made in this behalf are incorrect and therefore, the same cannot be accepted.
Held that- It is clear from the above Section that there should either be reduction in the rate of tax or the benefit of ITC which are required to be passed on to the recipients by commensurate reduction in the price. Since there had been no reduction in the rate of tax or benefit of additional ITC to the Respondent the provisions of the above Section are not attracted in the present case and the allegation of profiteering are not established against the Respondent.
Since there had been no reduction in the rate of tax or benefit of additional ITC to the Respondent the provisions of the above Section are not attracted in the present case and the allegation of profiteering are not established against the Respondent.
Anti-profiteering- The brief facts of the present case are that Applicant No. 1 had filed an application under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017 alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of the supply of purchase of Flat No. 7-405 in Tower 7 in Respondent’s real estate project “Themillenia 37d” situated at Sector-37D, Gurugram, Haryana.
Since there is no basis for comparison of ITC available before and after 01.07.2017, the Respondent was not required to recalibrate the price of the flat due to additional benefit of ITC. Hence, the allegations of the Applicant No.1 made in this behalf are incorrect and therefore, the same cannot be accepted.
Held that- It is clear from the above Section that there should either be reduction in the rate of tax or the benefit of ITC which are required to be passed on to the recipients by commensurate reduction in the price. Since there had been no reduction in the rate of tax or benefit of additional ITC to the Respondent the provisions of the above Section are not attracted in the present case and the allegation of profiteering are not established against the Respondent.