9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 337 - CCI - GSTProfiteering - landowners have received their share of flats from the developer or not - Respondent has not collected GST from the landowners as claimed by the Respondent - liability to pass on Input Tax Credit benefit to the landowners or not - HELD THAT - This Commission has carefully considered the Report dated 26.02.2021 furnished by the DGAP and the other material brought on record and it has been revealed that the Applicant No. 1 has been found eligible for ITC benefit of Rs. 19, 286/- including 12% GST. It has also been revealed that the Respondent has suo-moto passed on Rs. 40, 000/- i.e. 0.95% of the taxable turnover to the Applicant No. 1 as such benefit. It is also revealed that the Applicant vide email dated 02.05.2022 sent to the NAA in response to letters No. 3482 dated 30.03.2022 and No. 4291 dated 27.04.2022 has stated that the issue stands resolved and the matter may be treated as closed - It is apparent from the emails that the Applicant No. 1 does not want to pursue the matter further as she has already received the benefit of ITC from the Respondent as is also stated in the Report of the DGAP. The instant case does not fall under the ambit of Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 as the benefit of ITC has already been passed on to the Applicant No. 1 - the present proceedings launched under Section 171 of CGST Act 2017 are not maintainable and are hereby dropped.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are related to anti-profiteering under the CGST Act, 2017, specifically concerning the development of houses in a project called "Shalwak Elite" in Nagpur. The key issues include whether the landowners received their share of flats, if the Respondent collected GST from the landowners, and if the Respondent is liable to pass on Input Tax Credit benefit to the landowners. Relevant Details: Issue 1: Landowners' Share of Flats The Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) initially found that the landowners had not received their share of flats from the developer, which led to further investigation. Issue 2: GST Collection The DGAP determined that no GST had been collected from the landowners by the Respondent, as claimed by the Respondent, which was a point of contention. Issue 3: Input Tax Credit Benefit Regarding the Input Tax Credit benefit, the DGAP concluded that the Respondent was not liable to pass on the amount to the landowners due to the absence of GST collection and the sale deed being post-OC. Final Decision: After considering the reports and submissions, the Competition Commission of India found that the case did not fall under the anti-profiteering provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. This was because the benefit of Input Tax Credit had already been passed on to the Applicant No. 1. Therefore, the proceedings initiated under Section 171 were deemed not maintainable and were dropped. Conclusion: The Commission decided to supply a copy of the order to all parties involved at no cost, and the case file was to be closed upon completion of the proceedings.
|
