The Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the Applicants as well as the rest 64 purchasers of flats in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017,hence he has committed offence under section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017
Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— Anti- Profiteering – This report has been received from the DGAP. The applicant had stated in their complaint that the Respondent had resorted to profiteering in respect of the purchase of Flat, constructed by the Respondent in his “Vrindavan Yojna Project”, Rae Bareli Road, Lucknow. The Applicants had further alleged that the Respondent had increased the price of the flat after implementation of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and had not passed on the benefit of ITC by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the flat purchased by them. The DGAP submitted that the additional ITC, should have resulted in reduction in the base price as well as cum-tax price and the Respondent was required to pass on the above benefit to the recipients. The DGAP submitted that the Respondent had admitted that the benefit would have to be passed on to the recipients and in fact he had already passed on an amount of Rs.30,73,671/-, whereas the amount of benefit of ITC that needed to be passed on to the recipients came to Rs.38,29,753/-, therefore, the Respondent was further required to pass on the benefit of Rs. 7,56,082/-.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the Applicants as well as the rest 64 purchasers of flats in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the Act, 2017 and hence he has committed offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the Act, 2017 and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty under the above Section read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the Rules, 2017.
The Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the Applicants as well as the rest 64 purchasers of flats in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017,hence he has committed offence under section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017
Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— Anti- Profiteering – This report has been received from the DGAP. The applicant had stated in their complaint that the Respondent had resorted to profiteering in respect of the purchase of Flat, constructed by the Respondent in his “Vrindavan Yojna Project”, Rae Bareli Road, Lucknow. The Applicants had further alleged that the Respondent had increased the price of the flat after implementation of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and had not passed on the benefit of ITC by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the flat purchased by them. The DGAP submitted that the additional ITC, should have resulted in reduction in the base price as well as cum-tax price and the Respondent was required to pass on the above benefit to the recipients. The DGAP submitted that the Respondent had admitted that the benefit would have to be passed on to the recipients and in fact he had already passed on an amount of Rs.30,73,671/-, whereas the amount of benefit of ITC that needed to be passed on to the recipients came to Rs.38,29,753/-, therefore, the Respondent was further required to pass on the benefit of Rs. 7,56,082/-.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the Applicants as well as the rest 64 purchasers of flats in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the Act, 2017 and hence he has committed offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the Act, 2017 and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty under the above Section read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the Rules, 2017.