TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the above amount was collected by him from them till the payment is made, within a period of 3 months from the date of passing of this order as per the details mentioned in Annexure-15 attached with the Report dated 10.12.2019 in terms of Rule 133 (3) (b) of the above Rules. The Respondent shall not adjust any excess ITC benefit which he has passed on as per Annexure-16 against the benefit which is due to the beneficiaries as per Annexure-15. In case the above amount is not refunded by the Respondent during the above period it shall be recovered by the concerned Commissioner CGST/CGST and paid to the eligible buyers. This Authority under Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017 orders that the Respondent shall reduce the prices to be realized from the buyers of the flats of the above Project commensurate with the benefit of ITC received by him, Since the present investigation is only up to 31.03.2019 any benefit of ITC which accrues subsequently shall also be passed on to the buyers by the Respondent Accordingly, the DGAP under 133 (4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 is directed to further investigate the amount of benefit which is required to be passed on by the Respondent w.e.f. 01. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he consideration paid before 01.07.2017, but later on, in July 2017, the Respondent had raised demand for payment of GST @ 12% from him on the amount paid prior to the imposition of the GSL Along with the application, the Applicant had submitted the following documents:- (i) Duly filled in Form APAF-1. (ii) Clarification about applicability of GST on under construction and ready-to-move-in property issued by the CBEC (iii) Applicant s Ledger in the books of M/s. Gaursons. (iv) Correspondence of Applicant with M/s. Gaursons through e-mails. (v) Progress report of the project 16 th Park View . 2. The complaint lodged by the above Applicant was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering in its meetings held on 07.08.2018 and 08.08,2018 and it was decided to forward the same to the DGAP to conduct a detailed investigation. 3, While submitting the above Report the DGAP in paras 4 to 6 of the Report had stated that:- 4. On scrutiny of the documents received from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, it is observed that the Uttar Pradesh State Screening Committee has stated that in the subject case, the benefit of input tax credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent had not given the benefit of ITC to him which the Respondent had availed w.e.f. 01.07.2011 He had also submitted copy of the demand letter dated 17.07.2017 which showed that the Respondent had informed the above Applicant that his instalments were due on 21.07.2017 i.e. after coming in to force of the GST due to which it prima facie appeared that the above Applicant was entitled to the benefit of ITC. He had also submitted a copy of the letter dated 23.04.201B written by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to the Commissioner CGST, Lucknow which showed that after thorough enquiry the Additional Commissioner had found that the Respondent had claimed benefit of ITC through the TRAN-1 statements as well as the regular GSTR-3B Returns however, he had not passed on the benefit of ITC to the recipients. Based on the above evidence it was decided to call the Respondent to explain whether the above Applicant was entitled to the benefit of ITC or not Accordingly further hearings were held on 12.12.2018 and 19.12.2018, where the Respondent was represented by Sh. Ajay Sharma, Chartered Accountant, while the Applicant No. 1 was present in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in his Report dated 23.10.2018. The DGAP was also asked to file his reply vide order dated 22.01.2019 on the submissions of the above Applicant dated 22.01.2019 and vide his Report dated 30.01.2019 the DGAP had stated that as per the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, applicable to the Service Tax where the invoice was raised or payment was received prior to the appointed date under GST (01.0712017), the point of taxation would arise before the appointed day and thus, such transaction would attract Service Tax and not GST . The DGAP had also quoted the provisions of Sections 142 (11) 13 (2) and 31 of the CGST Act, 2017 in his support. The Report had also mentioned that based on the above provisions of the Act since the Respondent had issued the tax invoice on 21.07.2017 which was the due date of payment as per the contract and as per Section 13 (2) (a), the time of supply of service was the date of receipt of payment, i.e. 30.06.2017 in the present case. 8. During these hearings the Respondent vide his submissions dated 04.02.2019 also submitted that as per the recommendation of the CREDAI he had already passed on the benefit of ITC @ 4% in respect of the completed projects and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be correct. (iii) It has also been noticed that the builder has made payments for his tax liabilities pertaining to reverse charge by cash as per the current legal provisions and has utilized it for payment of his liabilities of CST on his outward supplies. No other payment of taxes has been made through the cash edger. 10. It was absolutely clear from the perusal of para (ii) above that the recommendation Of the Uttar Pradesh Screening Committee made to the Standing Committee for investigation in to the complaint lodged by the Applicant No, I was based on the report of the Additional Commissioner SGST, HQ Lucknow in which the documentary evidence of GSTR-3B Returns and TRAN-1 Statements was duly relied upon, copies of which were also supplied to the DGAP and it was specifically recorded by the above Committee that the Respondent had availed ITC but had not passed on the benefit of ITC to the above Applicant. However, in spite of the documentary evidence the DGAP had chosen not to examine the Applicant and had summarily rejected his claim against all cannons of natural justice by stating in para 4 of his Report dated 23.10.2018 that a perusal of the application rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GST Benefit to per GST Customer After 25.01.2018 (Due to rate change) 1. Gaur Siddartham 2476 7.50% 3.50% 2. Gaur City-I (1st Avenue] 1668 NIL NIL 3. Gaur City-1(4th Avenue] 680 NIL NIL 4. Gaur City-1 (5th Avenue] 1320 NIL NIL 5. Gaur City-1 (6th Avenue) 1118 NIL NIL 6. Gaur City-1 (7th Avenue) 2888 60% Carpet Area upto 60 Sq. Mtr-3.5% other-6% 7. Gaur City-1 (7th Avenue High street) 92 4% 4% 8. Gaur City-2 (City Arcade) 119 4% 4% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A,C,D,F,H,I-4% Tower A,C,D,F,H,I-4% Tower others 6% 26. Gaur Atulyam (Commercial) 84 4% 4% 27. 32nd Park view (Plots) 434 N.A N.A 28. 32nd Park view (Villa) 48 N.A N.A 29. 6 th Park View (Plots) 227 NIL NIL 30. 6th Park View (Villa) 50 NIL NIL 31. 2 nd park View - 1.55% 1.55% 32. GYC Galleria - 3.96% 3.96% Therefore, there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the above Applicant as well other flat buyers were entitled to be given the benefit of ITC availed by the Respondent the exact quantum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Respondent in the project 16th Park View , a Notice under Rule 129 (3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 was issued by the DGAP on 24.04.2019, calling upon the Respondent to reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of ITC has not been passed on to the above Applicant by way of commensurate reduction in price and if so, to so moto determine the quantum thereof and indicate the same in his reply to the Notice as well as to furnish all the supporting documents, Further, in the said Notice dated 24.04.2019, the Respondent was afforded an opportunity to inspect the non-confidential evidence/information submitted by the Applicant No. 1 during the period from 29.04.2019 to 01.05.2019. However, the Respondent did not avail of the said opportunity, The DGAP has also stated that vide e-mail dated 19.09,2019, the above Applicant was also given an opportunity to inspect the non-confidential documents/reply furnished by the Respondent on 25.09.2019 or 26.09.2019, which the Applicant did not avail of. The DGAP has further stated that the period covered by the current investigation was from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019. 16. The DGAP has also intimated that the Respondent has submitted his r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) That he was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and was working in the Real Estate Sector including construction of residential and commercial complexes. (ii) That the real estate industry was a complex business in terms of the involvement of the goods services. Therefore, it was also a complex job to identify the benefit out of anti-profiteering measures. In addition, there was no methodology (clear or unclear) provided under the GST law, how to proceed for the calculations of the benefits and their distribution. The problem gets aggravated due to the complexities in real-estate and construction contracts where the prices were fixed prior to implementation of GST and where a portion of work was pending to be executed as on that date. (iii). That the details of various projects undertaken by the Respondent under this GST Registration No. were furnished as is given in Table- B below:- Table- B Project wise area units Name of project Type Total Sold as on 30.06.2017 Unsold as on 30.06.2017 No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o some unusual reasons i.e. agitation by the farmers; therefore, interest cost has increased due to delay in demand. The implementation and compliance cost has also gone up due to implementation of the GST and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. (viii) That the calculation of benefit of ITC post introduction of GST and its distribution was a critical and complex task for the Respondent and the industry. Further. due to lack of availability of mechanism and regulation for identification of profiteering, industry as a whole was unable to calculate the effect of the benefit due to implementation of the GST, because it was a meticulous and difficult exercise to determine the quantum of benefit specifically in case of B2C supplies. (ix) That in the real estate industry in which the Respondent was operating had no evidence of any rate reduction due to introduction of the GST. In respect of the benefit of ITC, the Respondent has passed on the benefit on adhoc basis in line with the guidelines issued by the CREDAI and that benefit was more than the benefit actually accrued. (x) That the transitional credit has been taken in respect of the stock of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F 15,79,95,883 Summery GST return for post GST credit Budgeted ITC to be availed (post Dec-2018 till completion) G 9,81,19,715 Summery of projected cost Total ITC H=F+G 25,61,15,597 Benefit per sq. ft. under GST I=Total of (H)/Total of (E) 134 134 134 Total J-D+I 134 171 NET TOTAL BENEFIT Total benefit K=E*J 8,44,61,140 21,91,45,335 30,36,06,475 Benefit passed on till date (sold unit) On issued demand ( L ) 4,35,95,097 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit passed on. 19. The DGAP has also stated that the Respondent has claimed confidentiality of all the data/information furnished by him, in terms of Rule 130 of the Rules except the details/information related to the above Applicant like booking ledgers or demand/credit notes raised on him. 20. The DGAP has further stated that he has carefully examined the order received from this Authority, the various replies of the Respondent and the documents/evidence on record and found that the main issues for determination were whether there was benefit of reduction in the rate of tax or ITC on the supply of construction service by the Respondent, on introduction of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and if so, whether such benefit was passed on by the Respondent to the recipients, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. 21. The DGAP has also submitted that the Respondent, vide his letter dated 20.05,2019f has submitted a copy of the allotment letter dated 19.06.2017, application form and demand letters for the sale of Flat No. F-1149 to the above Applicant, measuring 1,000 sq. ft., at total basic sale price of ₹ 27,55,500/- (Rs, 2,730/- basic sale price per sq. ft.) and Rs, 500/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 305,760 7. On Completion 22 nd Floor Roof Slab 21.07.2017 5.00% 136,500 - - 16,380 (87,326) 65,554 8. At the time offer for fit out Not yet due on 31.03.2019 10.00% 273.000 25,000 - - 32,760 - 3,30,760 Total 100.00% 2,730,000 500 25,000 12,360 - 294,840 (87,326) 29,75374 25,59,441 22. The DGAP has further submitted that before enquiring into the allegation of profiteering it was important to examine Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 which governed the anti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities or Transactions which shall be treated neither as a supply of goods nor a supply of services) reads as sale of land and, subject to clause (b) of paragraph 5 of Schedule II, sale of building . Further, clause (b} of Paragraph 5 of Schedule II of the CGST Act, 2017 reads as (b) construction of a complex, building, civil structure or a part thereof, including a complex or building intended for sale to a buyer, wholly or partly, except where the entire consideration had been received after issuance of completion certificate, where required, by the competent authority or after his first occupation, whichever was earlier. Thus, the ITC pertaining to the residential units which were under construction but not sold was provisional ITC which might be required to be reversed by the Respondent, if such units remained unsold at the time of issue of the completion certificate, in terms of Section 17(2) Section 17(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, which read as under:- Section 17 (2) Where the goods or services or both was used by the registered person partly for effecting taxable supplies including zero-rated supplies under this Act or under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the Respondent for the period from April, 2016 to March, 2019, the details of the ITC availed by him, his turnover from the impugned project i Park View , the ratios of ITC to turnovers, during the pre-GST (April, 2016 to June, 2017) and post-GST (July, 2017 to March, 2019) periods, have been furnished by the DGAP as is given in the Table- E below:- Table- E (Amount in Rs.) S.No. Particulars April, 2016 to March 2017 April, 2017 to June, 2017 Total (Pre-GST) July, 2017 to march, 2018 April, 2018 to March, 2019 Total (Pre-GST) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)=(3)+(4) (6) (7) (8)=(6)+(7) 1. CENVAT of Service Tax Paid on input service used (A) 2,34,01,522 1,17,49,823 3,51,51,345 - - - 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate was 12% (GST @ 18% (along with 1/3 rd abatement for land value) on construction service, vide Notification No. 11/2017-CentraI Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017. Accordingly, on the basis the figures contained in Table-Et above, the comparative figures of the ratios of ITC availed/available to the turnover in the pre-GST and post-GST periods as well as the turnover, the recalibrated base price and the excess realization (profiteering) during the post-GST period, has been tabulated by the DGAP as has been given in Table- F below:- Table- F (Amount in Rs.) S.No. Particulars Post-GST 1. Period A July, 2017 to March, 2019 2. Output GST rate (%) B 12% 3. Ratio of CENVAT credit/ITC to Total Turnover as per table B above (%) C 7.32% 4. Increase in ITC availed post-GST (%) D=7.32% less 1.55% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the above computation of profiteering was with respect to 2,349 home buyers, whereas the Respondent has booked 2,309 units till 31.03.2019. 460 customers who have booked the flats and also paid the booking amounts in the pre-GST period, have not paid any consideration during the post-GST period from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019 (period under investigation). Therefore, if the ITC in respect of these 460 units was considered to calculate the profiteering in respect of 2,349 units where payments have been received after GST, the ITC as a percentage of turnover might be erroneous. Therefore, the benefit of ITC in respect of these 460 units might be calculated when the consideration would be received from such units by taking into account the proportionate ITC in respect of such units. 30. The DGAP has also stated that the Respondent has also submitted that he has passed on benefit of ₹ 28,22,65,749/- to the home buyers, He has also submitted sample copies of the credit notes vide his submission dated 08.11.2019 vide which he has passed on the benefit of ITC and the same has been verified by the DGAP an found to be correct. A summary of category-wise ITC benefit required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been given in Annexure-15 of the DGAP s Report dated 10.12.2019. Further, benefit passed on by the Respondent was higher than What he should have passed on, in respect of 1901 residential flats (Sr. 3 4 of Table above) by an amount of ₹ 9,55,34,150/-. The details of this excess benefit passed on by the Respondent have been given in Annexure-16 of the DGAP s Report dated 06.12.2019, However, the excess benefit passed on to some recipients, could not be set off against the additional benefit required to be passed on to the other recipients and it could only be adjusted against any future benefit that might accrue to such recipients. 32. The DGAP has further stated that the benefit of additional ITC to the tune of 5.77% of the turnover has accrued to the Respondent post-GST and the same was required to be passed on by him to the above Applicant and the other recipients, The DGAP has further stated that Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 appeared to have been contravened by the Respondent, inasmuch as the additional benefit of ITC @ 5.77% of the base prices received by the Respondent during the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019, has not been passed on by him to the Appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e incremental tax paid on services should not form part of profiteering. He has further elaborated that during the Pre-GST period, the rate of Service Tax charged on the input services was 15%, the credit of which was available, whereas during the GST regime, common GST rate for services has been increased from existing (pre-GST) 15% to 18%, the credit of which was also available in post GST. Therefore, no additional benefit has accrued to the respondent on availment of ITC related to input services in the GST regime as credit for the same was available in both the pre and post GST eras and the only difference was that the rate on services has been increased from 15% to 18%. The Respondent has submitted following illustration to strengthen his contention:- Pre-GST Post-GST Particulars Amount (in Lacs) Amount (in Lacs) Expenses 1000 1000 Service Tax paid @15% 150 180 Cenvat Credit available 150 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in overall project cost. Therefore, increased cost of the project should also have been considered while calculating the profiteering amount. The submissions of the Respondent dated 08.01.2019 were forwarded to the DGAP for his Report. 37. The DGAP vide his supplementary Report dated 23.01.2020 has submitted as follows:- A. On the issue of incremental Tax paid on services should not form part of profiteering and the issue of profiteering amount should be restricted to ITC availed w.r.t Goods only:- The DGAP has stated that Section 171(1) of CGST Act, 2017 required that the ITC availed by the Respondent should be quantified and passed on to the recipients. The benefit of ITC post introduction of GST would be available only on the amount which bore higher tax incidence i.e. the amount paid/raised post introduction of GST, which has been quantified in DGAP s report dated 10.122019. The DGAP has further stated that ins the Report dated 10.12.2019, increase in the ITC as a percentage of total turnover availed by the Respondent post-GST has been quantified. The input or input service wise availability or non-availability of ITC prior and post implementation of GST has not bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering in its meeting held on 25.04.2018 and was referred to the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering under Rule 128 (2) of the above Rules. The Standing Committee had considered the above complaint in its meetings held on and 08.08.2018 and forwarded it to the DGAP for investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the above Rules. The DGAP vide his Report dated 23.10.201b had found that the allegation of passing on the benefit of ITC was not found to be correct, Accordingly, this Authority had issued notice to the Applicant No, 1 to present evidence in support of his allegation. On the basis of the documents produced by the above Applicant this Authority was prima facie led to believe that he was eligible to get the benefit of ITC, Accordingly, the Respondent was directed to file reply why he should not be asked to pass on the benefit of ITC to the above Applicant. The Respondent in his submissions dated 19.12.2019 had admitted that he had passed on the benefit of ITC to the above Applicant as well as his other buyers on all the projects which he was executing. Keeping in view the above admission of the Respondent this Authority vide its order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. 41. The Respondent has also claimed that he has passed on benefit of ₹ 28,22,65,749/- to the home buyers on account of ITC. He has also submitted sample copies of the credit notes along with his submission dated 08.11.2019 vide which he has passed on the benefit of ITC, The DGAP has categorically admitted in his Report dated 10.12.2019 that he has verified the above claim of the Respondent and it has been found to be correct. He has also submitted Table-G supra and stated that the benefit passed on by the Respondent to the recipients was less than what he ought to have passed on in case of 908 residential flats including the Applicant No. 1 (Sr. 1 2 of Table) by an amount of ₹ 1,04,77,604/-. The details of these amounts have been furnished vide Annexure-15 of the DGAP s Report dated 10.12.2019, It has also been stated that the benefit passed on by the Respondent was higher than what he should have passed on, in respect of 1901 residential flats (Sr, 3 4 of Table) by an amount of ₹ 9,55,34,150/-. The details of this excess benefit passed on by the Respondent have been given in Annexure-16 of the DGAP s Report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the furtherance of his business and therefore, he cannot refuse to pass on the benefit of ITC. Accordingly, the above contention of the Respondent is frivolous and hence it cannot be accepted. 43. The Respondent has also contended that the profiteering amount should have been restricted to the ITC availed in respect of goods only proportionate to the sold and unsold area, In this respect it would be appropriate to mention that provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act require that the benefit of ITC should be passed on to the recipients by commensurate reduction in prices. The above provisions nowhere stipulate that the above benefit is to be passed on only on the ITC which has become available on account of purchase of the goods. For computing the benefit of ITC its availability during the pre GST period has to be compared with its availability post GST implementation and hence these computations have to be made on the basis of the overall figures of ITC and turnovers which have been furnished by the Respondent himself thorough his Tax Returns and the ITC Registers, As per the CGST Act, 2017 no bifurcation of the ITC is permissible on account of the goods and services purc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9/- to the home buyers on account of ITC which has been duly confirmed by the DGAP. Therefore, the Respondent is directed to pass on the balance benefit of ITC of ₹ 1,04,77,604/-in case of 908 residential flat buyers including the Applicant No. 1, mentioned at Sr. 1 2 of Table-G. as per Annexure-15 of the DGAP s Report dated 10.12.2019. The details of the profiteered amount and the buyers have been mentioned by the DGAP in the above Annexure. These buyers are identifiable as per the documents placed on record and therefore, the Respondent is directed to pass on an amount of ₹ 1,04,23,791/- and the amount of ₹ 53,813/- to the other flat buyers and the Applicant No. 1 respectively along with the interest @ 18% per annum from the dates from which the above amount was collected by him from them till the payment is made, within a period of 3 months from the date of passing of this order as per the details mentioned in Annexure-15 attached with the Report dated 10.12.2019 in terms of Rule 133 (3) (b) of the above Rules. The Respondent shall not adjust any excess ITC benefit which he has passed on as per Annexure-16 against the benefit which is due to the beneficiaries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the Other projects of the Respondent. However, it is evident from Annexure-B of his additional submissions dated 14.03.2019 filed by the Respondent that he was executing 29 projects, had passed on benefit of ITC in respect of 14 projects and had not charged GST in respect of 12 projects. He had also admitted that he had completed 10 projects before coming in to force of the GST and sold plots only in respect of the 2 projects. Once the Respondent had himself admitted to have executed and passed on the benefit ot ITC no complaint or evidence was required to further investigate whether the benefit of ITC has been correctly computed and passed on to the buyers. It would also be relevant to mention that once this Authority has ordered the DGAP to cause further investigation under the powers given to it under Section 171 (2) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 133 (4) of the above Rules and para 9 of the Methodology Procedure determined by it under Rule 126 the DGAP has no authority to refuse investigation on the ground that there is no complaint in respect of the other projects. 51. It is evident from the above that the Respondent has himself admitted vide Annexure-B of his a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Gaur City-1 (Gaur City Center} 3638 4% 4% 12. Gaur City Mall (Office Spaces) 1373 4% 4% 13. Gaur Mall (Gaur Suits) 135 4% 4% 14. Gaur City-2 (Sanskriti Vihar) 1079 NIL NIL 15. Gaur City-2 (11th Avenue) 2000 NIL NIL 16. Gaur City-2 (12th Avenue) 4813 Tower A to G K-4% Tower H,I,J,L,M,N,V-6% Area upto 60 Sq. Mtr. Tower A to G K 2.67% Tower H,I,J,L,M,N,V-3.50% others As as period rate 18. Gaur City-2 (14th Avenue High Street) 108 4% 4% 19. Gaur City-2 (16th Avenue) 2080 NIL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the benefit of ITC which the Respondent is apparently liable to pass on to the buyers of the above projects as per the provisions of Section 171 (2) of the CGST Act, 2017 once it has been brought to its notice. This is in consonance with the order dated 10.02,2020 passed by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 969/2020, in the case of M/s. Nestle India Ltd. another v. Union of India others = 2020 (2) TMI 671 - DELHI HIGH COURT in which the Hon ble Court has observed that:- We, however, make it clear that this interim order shall not come in the way of the National Anti Profiteering Authority in cases where it has suo moto taken action. (Emphasis supplied) Accordingly, the DGAP is directed to investigate the issue of passing on the benefit of additional ITC in respect of the above projects and submit his Report in terms of Rule 133 (5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 which reads as under:- (5)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (4), where upon receipt of the report of the Director General of Anti-profiteering referred to in sub-rule (6) of rule 129, the Authority has reasons to believe that there has been contravention of the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
