Latest GST Judgments

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

As the Respondent had not availed benefit of additional ITC in the post-GST regime. Hence, the allegation of not passing on the benefit of ITC is not established against the Respondent.

Anti-Profiteering— Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— The DGAP conducted investigation in respect of an application alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of flats in the Respondent’s project “Aryan Founttain Square", Attiblele-Surajpura Road, Bengaluru. The applicant alleged that the Respondent had included VAT and Service Tax in the MRP of the flat at the time of booking and demanded 12% GST on the pending amount which had resulted in double taxation, whereas the Respondent was actually required to pass on the benefit of ITC for the construction done after the GST implementation which he had not passed. The DGAP reported that w.e.f. 01.07.2017, the Respondent had not availed any benefit on account of ITC and thus, provisions of Section 171 (1) were not attracted in the present case.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority observed that the Respondent had not availed any ?ENVAT credit of the input services during the period from 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017 and had also not availed any ITC in the post-GST period from 01.07.2017 to 30.04.2019 and dismissed the application as the same does not fall under the ambit of Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171.—Director-General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs Vs. Aryan Hometec Pvt. Ltd. [2020] 27 TAXLOK.COM 068 (NAPA)