Anti-Profiteering — The brief facts of the present case are that a complaint dated 26.09.2018 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.
It is clear to us that the Respondent has profiteered in the project ‘Edge Tower’. Therefore, as per the provisions of Section 171 (2) of the CGST Act, 2017, this Authority has reasons to believe that there is a need to verify all the Input Tax Credits of the Respondent so as to arrive at the aggregate profiteering of the Respondent, since profiteering on the part of the Respondent has already been established in the case of “Edge Towers” project of the Respondent as also the fact that supplies from various projects of the Respondent are being made through a single GST registration and the same ITC Pool/Electronic Credit Ledger is being used for all the supplies being made from that registration. Therefore, the Authority, in line with the provisions of Section 171 (2) of the CGST Act, 2017 and as per the amended Rule 133 (5) (a) of the CGST Rules 2017 directs the DGAP to further examine all the other projects of the said Respondent for possible violations of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 and to submit his Report as per the provisions of Rule 133 (5) (b) of the CGST Rules, 2017, 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”. — Manish Saini, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs Vs. Ramaprastha Promoter & Developer Pvt. Ltd.  21 TAXLOK.COM 034 (NAPA)