Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + NAPA GST - 2019 (5) TMI NAPA This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1395 - NAPA - GSTProfiteering - purchase of a flat - benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) had not been passed on - increased benefit of ITC or not - contravention of provisions of section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The service rendered by the Respondent by way of construction of the project “Habitat-78” was not in existence during the pre-GST regime and that the project was, in fact, launched only after the implementation of GST. Annexure 8 of the DGAP's Report clearly shows that buyer's agreement with the Applicant No. 1 for the Apartment No. A4806 was signed on 17th November 2017 where it was written that the allotment was made vide letter dated 01.11.2017. The buyer's agreement also states that 'the company had since registered the project under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 read with the Rules notified there under by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority on 22.08.2017 under registration no. 78 of 2017'. The project was launched only after the implementation of GST. As there was no comparative pre-GST ITC that was accumulated or utilized by the Respondent the question of profiteering does not arise. The main allegation of the above Applicant was that GST @12% was charged instead of 8%. However as noticed from the demand letter dated 16.04.2018 which the above Applicant had quoted the total value was shown as ₹ 3,21,124/- and the taxable value was shown as ₹ 2, 14,083/- (2/3rd of the total value of ₹ 3,21,124/, separately for calculating the tax liability and the Respondent had charged GST @ 12% on the taxable value which was 2/3rd of the total value. Therefore, the effective rate of GST was 8% on the total value of ₹ 3,21,124/-, which clearly shows that the Respondent had reduced the GST rate from 12% to 8% w.e.f 25.01.2018, in terms of Notification No. 01/2018 Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018. It is also observed that based on the above clarification the Applicant No. 1 has admitted her mistake and withdrawn her complaint. Thus, it is clearly established that the Respondent had not contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - application dismissed.
|