Anti-Profiteering — Anti-profitaring-In the instant case, Applicants had booked flats with the Respondent under the Haryana Affordable Housing Policy 2013 notified by the State of Haryana. They had alleged that before coming in to force of the CGST Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.07.2017, Excise Duty and Value Added Tax (VAT) were being collected from them as Service Tax was exempted, however, after the implementation of the above Act, 12% GST was levied on the construction service in place of Excise Duty and VAT w.e.f. 01.07.2017, which was further reduced to 8% w.e.f. 25.01.2018 but the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) which was available to the Respondent and which was much more than the output tax liability of the Respondent had not been passed on to them and therefore the Applicants should not have been burdened with the entire GST of 12% or 8%. They had further alleged that the Respondent had not agreed with the contention of the Applicants that the Respondent was charging 12% and 8% GST and was simultaneously also enjoying the benefit of ITC and was not giving the benefit of the ITC, had claimed that the Respondent was contravening the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Held that—it is absolutely clear that the excess ITC was available to the Respondent the benefit of which he was required to pass on to the Applicants. The Respondent cannot appropriate this benefit as this is a concession given by the Government from it’s own tax revenue to reduce the prices being charged by the builders from the vulnerable section of society which cannot afford high value apartments. The Respondent is not being asked to extend this benefit out of his own account and he is only liable to pass on the benefit of ITC to which he has become entitled by virtue of the grant of ITC on the Construction Service by the Government.

It is evident from the above that the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by him under the above Policy in contravention of the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus realized more price from them than he was entitled to collect and has also compelled them to pay more GST than that they were required to pay by issuing incorrect tax invoices and hence he has committed an offence under section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty.Sukhbir Rohilla & Director General Anti-Profiteering, Indirect Taxes & Customs, New Delhi Vs. Pyramid Infratech Pvt. Ltd. [2018] 4 TAXLOK.COM 074 (NAPA)