2023 (9) TMI 762 - COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Profiteering - Respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC to him by way of a commensurate reduction in the price of the flat purchased by him - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the plain reading of Section 171 (1) mentioned that it deals with two situations, one relating to the passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax and the second pertaining to the passing on the benefit of the ITC. On the issue of reduction in the tax rate, it is apparent from the DGAP's Report that there has been no reduction in the rate of tax in the post GST period. Hence, the only issue to be examined is as to whether there was any additional benefit of ITC with the introduction of GST. The Commission observes that, the ITC, as a percentage of the turnover, that was available to the Respondent during the pre-GST period (April-2016 to June-2017) was 9.95%, whereas, during the post-GST period (July-2017 to October, 2019), it was 9.27%. Hence, the Respondent has availed lesser ITC to the extent of 0.68% [9.95% (-) 9.27%] of the turnover as compared to the pre-GST period. This confirms that in the post-GST period, the Respondent has not been benefited from additional ITC as percentage of the turnover that was available to the Respondent during post-GST is lower than during the pre-GST.

It is observed that the provision of the RERA Act, 2016 makes it mandatory for a real estate developer/promoter to maintain separate bank accounts for each of his projects registered separately under the RERA Act, 2016. In view of this, Secretary of Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Karnataka vide letter dated 12.10.2020 and subsequent reminder dated 29.01.2021 and 24.02.2021 was requested to intimate whether the Respondent has maintained separate accounts for Nikko Homes-I, Nikko Homes-II and Leela Residences projects. In reply, vide the letter dated 04.03.2021 Karnataka RERA has informed that M/s. Bhartiya Urban Pvt. Ltd. has maintained separate Bank accounts for above projects. The above information was sought from the Karnataka RERA only to confirm whether the Respondent has kept separate accounts for each project or not.

The instant case does not fall under the ambit of Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Accordingly, the proceedings initiated against the Respondent under Rule 133 (4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 are hereby dropped.