Since there are adequate reasons to believe that the Respondent may not have passed on the benefit of ITC to his recipients in terms of Section 171 (1), the authority directs the DGAP to further examine all the other projects of the said Respondent for possible violations
Anti-profiteering— The brief facts of the present case are that a complaint was filed before the Haryana State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering by the Applicant No. 1 alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purchase of Flat No. K-1603 in the Respondent’s project “Edge Towers”, Ramprastha City, Sec-37-D, Gurugram, Haryana.
The above Applicant had alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to him by way of commensurate reduction in the price. This Complaint was examined by the Haryana State Screening Committee and upon being prima facie satisfied that the Respondent had contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Held that— since the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to his homebuyers in his Project ‘Edge Towers’ in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus committed an offence under Section 171 (3A) of the above Act, he is liable to be penalized under the provisions of the above Section. Accordingly. a notice be issued to him directing him to explain as to why the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) of the above Act read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him.
since there are adequate reasons to believe that the Respondent may not have passed on the benefit of ITC to his recipients in terms of Section 171 (1) of the Act ibid, in the same manner as in the project in hand, i.e. ‘Edge Towers”.