The DGAP has considered the area of cancelled flats while computing the profiteered amount in his Report which has resulted in incorrect profiteering. Report filed by the DGAP cannot be accepted and hence the present case is remanded to him for further investigation
Anti-profiteering— The brief facts of the present case are that an application was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules by the Applicant alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purchase of Flat No. F1-203 in the Respondent’s project “Godrej-24”, Hinjewadi, Pune, Maharashtra-411057. The Applicant No. 1 had alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of input tax credit (ITC) to him by way of commensurate reduction in price on implementation of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, in terms of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
We have carefully considered the Report filed by the DGAP, submissions of the Respondent, the Applicant No. 1 and the other material placed on record and it is revealed that the Respondent is executing “Godrej-24” project at Hinjewadi, Pune, Maharashtra-411005. It is also revealed that the Applicant No. 1 had booked a Flat in the above project on 19.04.2017 and had complained to the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering on 15.10.2018 that the above Respondent was not passing on the benefit of ITC to him on Flat No. F1-203, which he had purchased from him. The above complaint was examined by the Standing Committee in its meeting held on 13.12.2018 and was forwarded to the DGAP for detailed investigation as per the provisions of Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Held that— Based upon the above facts the present Report filed by the DGAP cannot be accepted and hence the present case is remanded to him for further investigation as per the provisions of Rule 133 (4) of the above Rules
The DGAP has considered the area of cancelled flats while computing the profiteered amount in his Report which has resulted in incorrect profiteering. Report filed by the DGAP cannot be accepted and hence the present case is remanded to him for further investigation
Anti-profiteering— The brief facts of the present case are that an application was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules by the Applicant alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purchase of Flat No. F1-203 in the Respondent’s project “Godrej-24”, Hinjewadi, Pune, Maharashtra-411057. The Applicant No. 1 had alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of input tax credit (ITC) to him by way of commensurate reduction in price on implementation of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, in terms of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
We have carefully considered the Report filed by the DGAP, submissions of the Respondent, the Applicant No. 1 and the other material placed on record and it is revealed that the Respondent is executing “Godrej-24” project at Hinjewadi, Pune, Maharashtra-411005. It is also revealed that the Applicant No. 1 had booked a Flat in the above project on 19.04.2017 and had complained to the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering on 15.10.2018 that the above Respondent was not passing on the benefit of ITC to him on Flat No. F1-203, which he had purchased from him. The above complaint was examined by the Standing Committee in its meeting held on 13.12.2018 and was forwarded to the DGAP for detailed investigation as per the provisions of Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Held that— Based upon the above facts the present Report filed by the DGAP cannot be accepted and hence the present case is remanded to him for further investigation as per the provisions of Rule 133 (4) of the above Rules