TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount as ₹ 3,69,26,963/- as has been mentioned in Annexure-18 of the Report This amount also includes profiteered amount of ₹ 15,231/- to be paid to the Applicant No. 1 and Rs. to all the other 1152 buyers. This Authority hereby determines the profiteered amount as ₹ 3,69,26,963/- in terms of Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and directs the Respondent to pass on the benefit of ₹ 15,231/- to the Applicant No. 1 and ₹ 3,69,11,732/- to the rest 1152 buyers as given in Annexure-18 of the DGAP Report, along with interest @18% per annum to all the 1153 recipients from the dates from which the above amount was collected by him from the buyers till the payment is made, in terms of Rule 133 (3) (b) of the above Rules. Imposition of penalty - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by him in his present project and resorted to profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus he has apparently committed an offence under section 171 (3 A) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty. - Case No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e quantum thereof and indicate the same in his reply to the notice as well as furnish all the supporting documents. The Respondent was also given an opportunity to inspect the non-confidential evidence/information submitted by the above Applicant which was not availed by him. The above Applicant was also given an opportunity to inspect the non-confidential documents/reply furnished by the Respondent which was availed by him. 4. The Applicant No. 1 had submitted before the DGAP that he was in possession of receipt of payment of ₹ 8,00,000/- dated 29.03.2018 which he had paid to the Respondent for purchase of the flat. He had also informed that the Respondent had given false information and sent a mail to all the buyers in September, 2017 to pay the instalment which was due in March, 2018, in advance in October, 2017 and in case they paid it, the Respondent would charge 4.5% GST instead of 12% or 18%. 5. The DGAP had sought extension of time for completing the investigation which was extended by this Authority vide its order dated 31.12.2018 in terms of Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 6. The period of the investigation held by the DGAP in this case is from 01.07. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort submitted to the RERA, CENVAT Credit Register for the FY 2016-17 and 2017-18 (upto 30.06.2017), GST ITC Register for the period from July, 2017 to March, 2018, details of VAT/Service Tax/GST for the period of April, 2016 to August, 2018, List of home buyers in the project Paramount Emotions and Copy of the Completion Certificate dated 12.02.2018 before the DGAP. 11. Based on the documents filed by the Respondent, the DGAP has submitted that details of the amounts and taxes paid by the Applicant No. 1 to the Respondent were as has been shown in the Table given below:- Table A (Amount in Rs.) S.No. Payment Stages Due Date BSP + Other Charges Applicable Tax rate BSP Service Tax including SBC KKC GST Charge Total 1. On Booking 28/3/2016 10% 3.62% 374,624 13,580 - 388 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted reminders, the Respondent had not submitted the GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns for the period from April, 2018 to August, 2018. The Respondent had informed that he had not filed the GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns after March, 2018. 13. The DGAP has also submitted in his Report that the ITC pertaining to the units not sold prior to the issue of Completion Certificate on 12.02.2018, was required to be reversed and the computation of the same has been furnished by him in the Table given below:- Table B (Amount in Rs.) Particulars Factor Amount Total Saleable Area of Flats (in sq. ft.) A 2249965 Area Sold before Completion Certificate was obtained (in sq. ft.) B 1945823 Area sold before Completion Certificate was obtained (in Percentage) C=B/A 83.48% Area remaining Unsold at the time Completion Certificate was obtained (in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7,181,234 24,578,509 - 2. ITC of VAT Paid on Purchase of Inputs as per VAT Returns (B) - - - - 3. Total CENVAT/ITC Available (C)=(A+B) 17,397,275 7,181,234 24,578,509 - 4. ITC of CST as per Table-B above (D) - - - 6,10,40,252 5. Total Demand collected/to be collected as per Home buyers list (E) 499,832,550 1,362,417,465 6. Total Saleable Area of Flats/Commercial Shops in the project (Square Mtr.) (F) 2,249,965 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was as has been tabulated in the Table given below:- Table D (Amount in Rs.) S. No. Particulars Pre-GST Post-GST 1. Period A April,2016 to June, 2017 After 01.07.2017 2. Output tax rate (%) B 4.50% 12.00% 3. Ratio of CENVAT/ ITC to Turnover as per Table - D above (%) C 2.06% 4.48% 4. Increase in ITC availed post-GST (%) D=4.48 less 2.06% - 2.42% 5. Analysis of Increase in ITC: 6. Base Price collected/t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -GST period or during the post-GST period but before the receipt of Completion Certificate on 12.02.2018. The Respondent had also sold 32 flats between 12.02.2018 to 31.08.2018, i.e., during the period of investigation but after receiving the Completion Certificate. The DGAP has further clarified that as these buyers would not suffer any burden of tax as GST was not applicable to the flats sold after receipt of the Completion Certificate on 12.02.2018, the Respondent would not be eligible to proportionate ITC in respect of such flats and the benefit of ITC was also not required to be passed on to the said home buyers. The Respondent would be eligible to avail proportionate ITC only in respect of the flats/ area sold prior to the issue of Completion Certificate on 12.02.2018. 19. The DGAP has also observed that the benefit of additional ITC of 2.42% of the amounts collected or to be collected by the Respondent from the Applicant No. 1 and other recipients as on 30.06.2017 and the new recipients who had made bookings post 01.07.2017 but prior to the issue of Completion Certificate on 12.02.2018, which had accrued to the Respondent was required to be passed on to the Applican ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 06.2019, 25.06.2019, 09.07.2019 and 16.07.2019. 24. The Respondent has filed his first written submissions on 07.05.2019 vide which he stated that the assumptions made and the criteria used by the DGAP to assess the profiteered amount was incorrect. He has also stated that Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 required that any reduction in the rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of ITC should be passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in the prices by an assessee, which would require an exact calculation of the tax credit available and utilizable before introduction of GST and post introduction of GST and the resultant benefit should be computed to calculate the profiteered amount. He has further stated that in case of a real estate development company, there were multiple kinds of inputs some of which were eligible for ITC in the pre-GST regime, however post-GST, while many of the indirect taxes had been subsumed and ITC was available on inputs, there were constraints/conditions on utilizing the ITC especially when any excess ITC was not available as a refund. 25. also submitted that it was very difficult to calculat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eering, which was not taken into consideration by the DGAP. The Respondent has also furnished a copy of the letter of offer of Possession as well as the Applicant No. 1 s ledger account to substantiate his claim. 28. The Respondent has also mentioned that as per the complaint, the Applicant No. I had demanded ITC benefit of ₹ 68,179/-, while as per the DGAP s Report, he had profiteered only ₹ 15,231/(including GST on the Base amount of ₹ 13,599/-) in respect of the Applicant No. I s unit and thus, he had passed on a much higher benefit than what the Applicant No. 1 was entitled to. 29. The Respondent has further mentioned that the construction of the project was nearing completion when the GST had come into force on 01.07.2017 and there was very little tax rate/ITC benefit which he had got as a result of the introduction of the GST. But still, he had given GST benefit of ₹ 7,97,97,359/- suo-moto to his customers including the Applicant No. 1, as a goodwill gesture before the filing of the complaint by the Applicant No. 1. 30. also submitted the summarized position of the GST benefit as calculated by the DGAP and what was passed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,81,470 6,51,81,470 3,45,17,964 iii) In respect of 91 cases, which could be further divided into two categories - (i) 80 cases, where there was no demand raised post the introduction of GST and hence no GST benefit could have accrued and (ii) 11 cases, where some demand was raised post July 1, 2017 but the GST benefit was not passed on. He has summarised this in the table given below:- No. of cases Total sale value Instalments post GST GST benefit as calculated by DGAP GST benefit re-calculated by the company on same formula* Benefit passed on Excess/ (short) benefit passed on to Customers Benefit Due 11 3,64,90,365 1,52,96,590 563,512 414,598 Nil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit in such cases. 32. He has also summarised his above 5 specific cases in the table given below:- Details Basis Discount on account of GST Excess GST passed on No benefit passed on GST benefit passed on No benefit due Total (Rs.) Benefit due Benefit not due Benefit Due, Short passed Benefit Due, Excess Total no. of units 26 972 11 80 56 12 400 1557 Sale Value of units A 114,872,819 3654,467,283 36,490,365 213,247,473 160,485,817 43,983,830 1024,213,734 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 34,762,252 (414,599) - 290,386 (227,510) - 48,195,358 33. He has also contended that it was clear from the above that out of total 1557 cases, in only 23 cases he had short passed/not passed on the GST benefit that was due. He has also claimed that he had recalculated this GST benefit by the formula used by the DGAP which amounted to ₹ 6,42,109/- and in 1054 cases, he had already passed on the excess benefit of ₹ 4,57,23,954/-, whereas in the case of the balance 480 units no benefit was required to be passed on. He has further contended that out of the 23 units where GST benefit was short/not passed on, 2 units had been subsequently cancelled in January 2019. These two units accounted for a short benefit of ₹ 2,40,092/- and after adjusting this, the balance amount of GST benefit short/not passed on to the buyers of 21 units amounted to ₹ 4,02,017/-only. 34. The Respondent has also stated that as per the DGAP s calculations, the total ITC available during July 2017 to August 2018 was Rs, 7,05,83,085/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T and copies of the Service Tax Returns. (iii) Details of his ongoing projects. 37. In response to the Applicant No. I s submissions, the Respondent has submitted that the claim of Applicant No. 1 that he had charged 18% GST on the services which should have been treated as composite supply and charged GST at 12%, was not correct and he had treated the following services as bundled and thus part of composite service:- a) Lease Rent b) EDC c) FFC d) Club Membership e) Car Parking Accordingly, a tax rate of 12% had been charged on these 38. The Respondent has also clarified that there were other services which were primarily of the nature of reimbursement of the various costs but could not be invoiced as such due to lack of one-to-one co-relation, which included power back-up charges; electric meter charges; external electrification charges and legal document charges for registration etc. These were categorised as Other Charges and he had correctly charged 18% GST on these charges. 39. The Respondent has also pleaded that as per Section 15(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 any taxes, dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enefit to be passed (Rs.) (c-b) Instalments post GST (Rs.) basic cost 561,936 25,287 67,433 42,145 Other Charges (Rs.) as per demand letter 177,180 7,973 31,892 23,919 IFMS/ONT box non taxable 32,900 - - - Legal Charges 15,000 2,700 2,700 - Total (Rs.) 787,016 35,960 102,025 66,064 Differential GST on Labour Cess 2,114 Total benefit (Rs.) 68,178 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... full Payment including Instalment have fallen due pre-GST Others-A 1054 1249,071,884 35,273,439 79,578, 798 45,723,954 NIL GST benefit recalculated on actual instalments falling due post GST Others-B 21 22,896,133 893,248 218,561 NIL 402,017 GST benefit short/not passed on Cancelled units 2 8,858,197 240,092 NIL NIL NIL Copies of cancellation documents for these units are already submitted Total 1557 36,926,971 79,797,359 45,723,954 402,017 45. He has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the other hand inspite of market conditions and slow down, the Respondent had claimed passing of an amount of ₹ 7,97,97,359/- as GST benefit to his customers while the total ITC claimed by him during the GST period was only ₹ 7,05,83,085/-. He has also contended that it was surprising that the Respondent was yet to give physical possession of the flats even after the receipt of the Occupancy Certificate 15 months ago to 85% of the allottees. He has further contended that the Respondent was defaulting on statutory compliances, was not able to handover titles to 70% of the allottees and had been taken to the NCLT by his creditors on previous occasion and still he was claiming that he had paid full benefit of GST to the flat buyers. 49. The Applicant No. 1 has also submitted that the Respondent had also mentioned in his submissions dated 07.05.2019 that the discount was offered in 26 cases specifically for the GST benefit and there was a reduction in Base Price of the units sold after the implementation of CST and thus ITC benefit was not to be passed on in respect of these 26 cases. He has further submitted that the allotment letter for Flat No. A-1202 having t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,57,23,954/- passed on to his customers after adjusting the amount of ITC reversal, but since it was a goodwill gesture done suo moto by the Respondent and without any consideration, thus it could not be claimed back from the allotees. 51. The Applicant No. 1 has also argued that as per Annexure- 18 of the DGAP s Report dated 02.04.2019, the details of 1554 flats sold prior to the implementation of the GST were provided by the Respondent according to which an amount of ₹ 136,24,17,465/- was payable by the allottees of the project after implementation of the GST. The last instalment for the said project was raised on 27.02.2018 with the condition to make the payment within 30 days. However, as per the audited Cost Audit Report and the GSTR-3B returns, value of the outward taxable supplies from all the running projects was only Rs. thus, there seemed to be a mismatch between the figures available in the above Report/GSTR-3B returns and Annexure18 of the DGAP s Report. He has further argued that ₹ 136.24 Crores had been considered by the DGAP for calculating ITC to total turnover ratio in his report. The Applicant No. 1 has also submitted that no demand was due fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply as per GSTR-3B and Cost Audit Report) 95,98,64,556 Ratio of ITC to Total Turnover/Post GST ITC upto date of completion/total turnover from flats booked till Completion Certificate) 18.29% Ratio of CENVAT to Total Turnover (as calculated by DGAP in its investigation report) 2.06% Benefit from additional ITC 16.23% 53. The Applicant No. 1 has also contended that the effect of reduction in prices of material consumed in the construction industry could also be ascertained from the abridged cost statement of the Respondent which showed that per unit rate of material consumed had come down from ₹ 36.01 per sq. ft. to ₹ 17.16 per sq. ft. in comparison to the year before implementation of the GST. Thus, as compared with the Cost Audit Report duly signed by the Respondent, there had been a reduction of around 10% in the Cement prices alone in comparison to the Pre-GST regime. He has further stated that w.e.f. 01.04.2019 a new scheme had been introduced whereby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lding intended for sale to a buyer, wholly or partly, except where the entire consideration has been received after issuance of completion certificate, where required, by the competent authority or after its first occupation, whichever is earlier. Paragraph 6: Composite Supply The following composite supply shall be treated as supply of services, namely: (a) works contract as defined in clause (119) of Section 2; and (b) Works Contract: Section 2(119) defines it as Works contract means a contract for building, construction, fabrication, completion, erection, installation, fitting out, improvement, modification, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration, or commissioning of any immovable property wherein transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some form) is involved in the execution of such contract. 56. The Applicant No. 1 has accordingly contended that it was decided in Advanced Ruling in the case of Bengal Peerless Housing Development Company Limited (GST AAR West Bengal) = 2019 (5) TMI 311 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL that all incidental services/facilities provided along with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 9 of the Act laid down that GST shall be levied on the value determined under Section 15 of the said Act and Section 15 of the CGST Act laid down the manner in which the taxable value of a supply of goods or services or both should be determined. The provision employed a means as well as an includes clause. The means clause of the definition stated that the value of supply of goods or service i.e. the transaction value should be the price actually paid or payable for the said supply/ of goods or services. He has also claimed that the price was not defined under the CGST Act, 2017. He has further submitted various definitions of Price given by the Oxford Dictionary and the Webster s Encyclopaedic Unabridged Dictionary and stated that only such money consideration which was paid in return for the supply of the goods or services by the recipient would be includable in the transaction value. He has also cited the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Union of India v. Intercontinental Consultants Technocrats (P) Ltd passed in Civil Appeal No. 2013 of 2014 and other connected matters on 07.03.2018 = 2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT and st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere applicable for unincorporated bodies and non-profit entities. He has also stated that as per the provisions of Section 14 (2) of the UP Apartments Act, 2010 it was the responsibility of the promoter to get the Association registered when a certain number of apartments or 33% of the apartments, whichever was more, had been handed over by way of sale, transfer or possession, provided the building had been completed along with all infrastructure services and Completion Certificate obtained from the local authority. In the present project, Completion Certificate had been issued to the Respondent on 12.02.2018 i.e. almost more than 15 months back and the Respondent was not able to handover the possession to even 20% of the owners though the RWA should have been formed almost a year back. Vide email dated 04.07.2019, the Applicant No. 1 has also alleged harassment from the Respondent stating that he was not giving him physical possession of the flat. 61. The Respondent has filed written submissions dated 08.07.2019 vide which he has replied the Applicant No. I s submissions dated 21.06.2019 in which he has stated that he had taken a single GST registration for his 5 projects ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and while a portion of the difference could be on account of the GST benefit the rest might be on account of other factors like market conditions and payment terms etc. Thus, comparing the per sq. ft. rate offered to the customers at different points in time had no rationale to arrive at GST benefit available to the developer. Thus, the Applicant No. I s claim that the discount offered to the 26 buyers (booked under the special scheme) should have been offered to all other buyers also had no legal or commercial basis. The Respondent has further contended that the Applicant No. 1, on the one hand had referred to the amount of ₹ 136,24,17,465/- being the demand to be collected from the home buyers post the implementation of GST, as calculated and mentioned by the DGAP and on the other hand he had referred to an amount of ₹ 95,98,64,556/-, which was the value of the taxable supplies for all the projects of the Respondent for the period from April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018. On this issue, the Respondent has also stated that one figure was for one project while the other was for his company as a whole i.e. for all the 5 projects and also the first figure was the balance val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had to be spread over the total balance value receivable for the relevant flats and not what had been received/invoiced in this period. The Respondent has also stated that the Applicant No. 1 had also referred to the Cost Audit Report where he had referred to the cost calculated per unit. This statement was a calculation of cost over various heads per unit, which in this case was per sq. ft. and thus, various cost items were divided over the total area constructed in the year in sq. ft. and per sq. ft. cost was arrived at for various heads. The Respondent has claimed that in the present case, the stage of the project was very important as the costs and the respective proportions kept changing with the stage of construction. He has claimed that in the initial stage, Steel might be a big component while at the finishing stage, there would probably be negligible portion of Steel but finishing items would be in large quantity. He has also claimed that this statement was for all the projects of the Respondent and the fact that material cost per sq. ft. had dropped from the previous year was a reflection of the stage of various projects and not the cost saving on account of GST or ITC, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e considered for computing the profiteered amount. The DGAP has also submitted that this fact was also mentioned in Para 19 of his Report dated 02.04.2019 and it appeared that the Applicant No. 1 had taken the combined (for all the projects) figures of ITC for the purpose of his calculation. 67. The Respondent has also filed written submissions dated 15.07.2019 vide which he has referred to the DGAP s Report dated 09.07.2019 and stated that the DGAP had confirmed his submissions made during the hearing on 09.07.2019 as under:- a) That the Applicant No. I was referring to the data from GSTR-3B returns of his company for the period from July 2017 to March 2018 while the DGAPs investigation covered the period of July, 2017 to August, 2018. b) That the turnover and ITC appearing in the returns was for more than one project, while the data considered by the DGAP was for the present project. The Respondent has thus submitted that the data provided by him to the DGAP was authentic and by no means frivolous. During the hearing held on 09.07.2019, the Applicant No. 1 had made another submission where he had tried to link the delay in his getting posse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, 2017 to 12.02.2018 and reported that the Pre-GST ratio came to 2.06% and the Post-GST ratio was 4.48% and hence the Respondent had availed additional benefit of ITC after coming in to force of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017 of 2.42% (4.48%-2-06%) which he was required to pass on to his buyers as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act. The Post-GST ratio was computed by the DGAP after deducting an amount of ₹ 95,42,833/- from the total ITC of ₹ 7,05,83,085/- which the Respondent had availed Post-GST, on account of the reversal of ITC on the unsold area of 3,04,142/- Sq. ft. at the time of issue of Completion Certificate, which has been mentioned by him in Table B and thus he has taken an amount of ₹ 6,10,40,252/- as the additional ITC benefit during the Post-GST period. 69. The DGAP as per Table D has further reported that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional ITC of 2.42% and has in excess collected/profiteered an amount of ₹ 3,69,26,963/- from the house buyers which he was required to pass on to them. The DGAP has also intimated that the Respondent had profiteered an amount of ₹ 15,231/- from the Applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnished the list of homebuyers along with the GST benefit passed on to them. However, perusal of the record shows that in respect of the 26 home buyers he had given discount of ₹ 1,37,84,829/- in August, 2017 when he had not even received the ITC post implementation of the GST. Therefore, this discount cannot be considered to have been passed on due to the benefit of ITC as it has been given by him out of his profit margin due to slow down in the market, which has also been accepted by him. There is also no evidence to suggest the he had passed on the benefit of ₹ 6,51,81,470/- to the 972 house buyers on account of ITC as there is no such entry in the ledger accounts of these buyers, A typical entry of ₹ 1,10,561.00 made in the ledger account on 12.05.2018 of one Mr. Mohammad Najmuzzaman, who has been allotted unit No. A-005 in the above project by the Respondent, reads as Receipt Ref. CNEM/00257/18-18) (98,715.00+Tax 11,846.00) shows that no where it has been mentioned that this amount has been transferred on account of ITC benefit. Perusal of the copies of the ledger accounts of the other house buyers to whom the Respondent has claimed to have passed on the be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tration for all his five projects due to which the ITC and the turnover shown in his GSTR-3B returns could not be taken for calculation of the profiteered amount as had been done by the above Applicant. He has further claimed that he had supplied correct figures pertaining to his present project which had been taken in to account by the DGAP correctly. The claim made by the Respondent appears to be correct which has also been supported by the DGAP vide his Report dated 09.07.2019. 76. The Applicant No. 1 in his submissions has claimed that the Respondent should not have charged 18% GST on the services which could be treated as composite supply as per the provisions of section 2 (30) of the above Act and should have charged GST @12% only. He has also claimed that the Respondent had charged GST on the maintenance charges as well the Labour Cess which he could not have charged as the maintenance charges up to the extent of ₹ 7500/- were exempt from the payment of GST as per the Notifications No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 read with Notification No. 2/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018. In this connection it would be pertinent to mention that this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion obtained by the Respondent. He has also clarified that he had taken the ITC in respect of the present project only and hence there was bound to be difference in the amount of ITC. The explanation given by the DGAP in this connection appears to be correct and accordingly, the claim made by the above Applicant cannot be accepted. Any doubt raised by the above Applicant on the quantum of ITC taken to be correct by the DGAP on the basis of the statement furnished by the Respondent can also not be admitted due to the reason that there is no evidence produced by the above Applicant not to rely on it. 79. The above Applicant has also stated that he should also be given the same discount which had been given to the other house buyers including the 26 buyers mentioned above as well as the buyer of house No. A-1202. However, this contention of the above Applicant is not admissible since he can get benefit only on the basis of the additional ITC which had become available to the Respondent. Any discount/benefit given by the Respondent out of his profit margin or due to cost reduction or on account of market conditions does not fall within the ambit of section 171 (1) of the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omputed by the Applicant No. 1 was based on the figures contained in the GSTR-3B returns filed by the Respondent for the period from July, 2017 to March, 2018. However, the DGAP has covered the period from July, 2017 to August, 2018 only and the turnover and the ITC pertaining to more than one project had been mentioned in the GST returns filed by the Respondent, whereas the figures contained in the project-wise break-up submitted by the Respondent, were considered by the DGAP. The Applicant No. 1 has taken the combined (for all the projects) figures of the ITC for the purpose of his calculation and hence the above contention of the above Applicant cannot be considered. 84. The Applicant No. 1 has also claimed that he was entitled to ITC benefit ₹ 68,178.60/- as per the statement attached as Annexure-I to the DGAP s Report. However, perusal of the same shows that it includes extra charges realised from him by the Respondent on account of Labour Cess, non-taxable items, legal expenses and differential GST on Labour Cess. As mentioned supra determination of the all the additional charges does not lie within the jurisdiction of this Authority and hence the claim made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
