As per the provisions of Rule 133 (4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 the DGAP is directed to reinvestigate that what is the profiteered amount and entitlement of benefit of ITC to be passed on to each eligible home-buyer including the Applicant
Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— Anti- Profiteering – The Report dated 26.06.2019 and the supplementary Report dated 14.10.2019 has been received from the DGAP after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6), on the alleged profiteering by the Respondent while on sale of Flats in Tower-4 of the Respondent’s project “Runwal Forests”, near Mangatram Petrol Pump, LBS Marg, Kanjurmarg (W), Mumbai. Further, the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC although he had charged GST @ 12% w.e.f. 01.07.2017. The DGAP has concluded that the Respondent has benefited from additional ITC to the tune of 2.59% [3.82% (-) 1.23%] of the turnover. The benefit of the additional ITC should have been passed on by the Respondent to the recipients. By not reducing the pre-GST basic price by 2.59% on account of additional benefit of ITC and charging GST @12% or 8% on the pre-GST basic price, the Respondent have contravened the provisions of Section 171. The authority observed that there was error in the calculation of ITC computed by the DGAP. The opening balance of CENVAT credit has been double counted by the DGAP to arrive at the ITC credit in the post-GST regime. The DGAP vide his Report dated 14.10.2019 has admitted that this.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority directed the DGAP to further reinvestigate the above issues and submit his Report.
As per the provisions of Rule 133 (4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 the DGAP is directed to reinvestigate that what is the profiteered amount and entitlement of benefit of ITC to be passed on to each eligible home-buyer including the Applicant
Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— Anti- Profiteering – The Report dated 26.06.2019 and the supplementary Report dated 14.10.2019 has been received from the DGAP after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6), on the alleged profiteering by the Respondent while on sale of Flats in Tower-4 of the Respondent’s project “Runwal Forests”, near Mangatram Petrol Pump, LBS Marg, Kanjurmarg (W), Mumbai. Further, the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC although he had charged GST @ 12% w.e.f. 01.07.2017. The DGAP has concluded that the Respondent has benefited from additional ITC to the tune of 2.59% [3.82% (-) 1.23%] of the turnover. The benefit of the additional ITC should have been passed on by the Respondent to the recipients. By not reducing the pre-GST basic price by 2.59% on account of additional benefit of ITC and charging GST @12% or 8% on the pre-GST basic price, the Respondent have contravened the provisions of Section 171. The authority observed that there was error in the calculation of ITC computed by the DGAP. The opening balance of CENVAT credit has been double counted by the DGAP to arrive at the ITC credit in the post-GST regime. The DGAP vide his Report dated 14.10.2019 has admitted that this.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority directed the DGAP to further reinvestigate the above issues and submit his Report.