ITC/turnover of two separate projects cannot be clubbed for the purpose of calculation of profiteering. We find that further investigation is required in the present case, accordingly the DGAP is directed to reinvestigate the matter and furnish his report
Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— Anti- Profiteering – The applicants alleged profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purchase of a flat in his project “The Jewel of Noida” situated at Plot No. 14, Eco City, Sector-75, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. The Applicant alleged that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of ITC to him by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the flat purchased by him on introduction of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017. The DGAP submitted that provisions of Section 171 of the Act have been contravened by the Respondent, inasmuch as the benefit of additional ITC @2.71% of the demand raised by the Respondent during the post-GST period from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018, has not been passed on to 426 recipients other than the Applicant. The Respondent had realized an excess amount of 3,93,85,763/-which includes both the profiteered amount. The Authority observed that computation of profiteering in the two projects, need to be revisited by the DGAP, as project 1 and project 2 are two separate projects and hence the ITC/turnover of the two cannot be clubbed for the purpose of calculation of profiteering.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority directed the DGAP to reinvestigate the matter and furnish his report in terms of Rule 133(4) within 02 months.
ITC/turnover of two separate projects cannot be clubbed for the purpose of calculation of profiteering. We find that further investigation is required in the present case, accordingly the DGAP is directed to reinvestigate the matter and furnish his report
Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— Anti- Profiteering – The applicants alleged profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purchase of a flat in his project “The Jewel of Noida” situated at Plot No. 14, Eco City, Sector-75, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. The Applicant alleged that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of ITC to him by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the flat purchased by him on introduction of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017. The DGAP submitted that provisions of Section 171 of the Act have been contravened by the Respondent, inasmuch as the benefit of additional ITC @2.71% of the demand raised by the Respondent during the post-GST period from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018, has not been passed on to 426 recipients other than the Applicant. The Respondent had realized an excess amount of 3,93,85,763/-which includes both the profiteered amount. The Authority observed that computation of profiteering in the two projects, need to be revisited by the DGAP, as project 1 and project 2 are two separate projects and hence the ITC/turnover of the two cannot be clubbed for the purpose of calculation of profiteering.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority directed the DGAP to reinvestigate the matter and furnish his report in terms of Rule 133(4) within 02 months.