Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + NAPA GST - 2022 (9) TMI NAPA This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 253 - NAPA - GSTProfiteering - purchase of a Flat - allegation is that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to him by way of commensurate reduction in the price - contravention of provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the plain reading of Section 171 (1) mentioned above 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 net benefit of ITC with the introduction of GST. On this issue, the DGAP In his Report, has stated that ITC as a percentage of the turnover which was available to the Respondent during the pre-GST period (April-2015 to June-2017) was 1.03% and during the post-GST period (July-2017 to March-2019), it was 0.63%. On this basis, the DGAP has concluded his Report with the findings that the Respondent had neither been benefited from additional If nor there had been a reduction in the tax rate in the post-GST period for the Project “Garden Avenue K-4”. The Authority has no reason to differ from the Report of DGAP and we therefore agree with his findings since there was no reduction in the rate of tax nor there was increased additional benefit on account of ETC. Hence, the provisions of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 are not liable to be invoked in this case. The Authority concludes that the instant case does not fall under the ambit of Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as the Respondent has neither been benefited from additional ITC nor has there been a reduction in the tax rate in the post-GST period. The application filed by the Applicant No. 1 requesting action against the Respondent for alleged violation of the provisions of the Section 171 of the CGST Act is not maintainable and hence the same is dismissed.
|