Anti-Profiteering — Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— The report has been received from the DGAP, under (4) Rule 133 of the Rules, 2017. A reference was received from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of the purchase of a flat by the Applicant in the project “Elegant Berkeley” situated at Hennur Village, Kasaba Hobli, BBMP, Bangalore North. The Applicant submitted that the Respondent had not provided any tax invoice for the supply of construction service, charged higher GST @ 18% instead of 12% w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and also Service Tax was charged after GST. Further, the Respondent raised the cost of the flat after implementation of GST by extracting Service Tax on the already paid amount in the pre-GST era and also charged GST @ 18% (instead of 12%) on the balance amount after the introduction of GST. The DGAP concluded that provision of Section 171 of the Act, 2017 have been contravened by the Respondent, since the additional benefit of ITC has not been passed on by the Respondent to the Applicant. The Respondent has realized an additional amount of Rs. 21,113/- from the Applicant which included both the profiteered amount and GST on the said profiteered amount.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that Respondent has denied the benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by him in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the Act and has thus profiteered, therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty under Section 171 (3A) of the Act.—Kamal Nayan Singhania, Director-General Anti-Proffiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs Vs Elegant Properties [2020] 25 TAXLOK.COM 051 (NAPA)