Latest GST Judgments

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library

The Respondent had neither benefited from additional ITC nor had there been a reduction in the tax rate in the post-GST period and therefore it does not qualify to be a case of profiteering.

Anti-Profiteering Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— This report has been received from the DGAP. The Applicant had stated that the Respondent had resorted to profiteering in respect of the supply of construction services related to the purchase of Flat in the respondent’s project “Hero Homes”, Sector-104, Dwarka Expressway, Gurugram. It is further alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the apartment. The Standing Committee forwarded the same to the DGAP for detailed investigation. The DGAP reported that Section 171 of the Act, 2017 came into play where there was a reduction in the rate of tax or there was an increase in the benefit of ITC. Since the project was launched after implementation of GST, there was no pre-GST tax rate or ITC availability that could be compared with the post-GST tax rate and ITC, thus, Section 171 (1) of the Act, 2017 has not been contravened by the respondent.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that the instant case does not fall under the ambit of Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the allegation that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of ITC in this case is not found sustainable.—Kapil Dev Sharma, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Indirect Taxes & Customs Vs. Vikas Parks Pvt. Ltd. [2020] 24 TAXLOK.COM 034 (NAPA)