TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eas, during the post-GST period (July-2017 to September-2019), it was 6.85% for the project Siddha Eden Lakeview'. This confirms that, post-GST, the Respondent No. 1 2 have been benefited from additional ITC to the tune of 5.69% (6.85% - 1.16%) of their turnover for the project Siddha Eden Lakeview' and the same was required to be passed on to the customers/flat buyers/recipients - The Respondent No. 1 is required to pass on Rs. 96,857/- as the additional benefit of ITC to the Applicant No. 1 and Rs. 4,10,43,645/- to other 264 recipients. Further, the Respondent No. 2 is required to pass on Rs. 2,50,94,164/- to 270 other flat buyers/recipients in the project 'Siddha Eden Lakeview' for the period from 1.07.2017 to 30.09.2019. The Authority finds no reason to differ from the above-detailed computation of profiteering in the DGAP's Report or the methodology adopted. The Authority finds that the Respondent No. 1 has profiteered by an amount of Rs. 4,11,40,502/- and the Respondent No. 2 has profiteered by an amount of Rs. 2,50,94,164/- during the period of investigation i.e. 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019 - The amount profiteered is Rs. 96,857/-(including GST) in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Central Goods Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering had made a reference to the DGAP to conduct a detailed investigation in respect of an application filed by the Applicant No. 1 alleging profiteering by the Respondent No. 1 in respect of purchase of flat no. HR/II/505 (3BHK + 2T) in the Respondent No. 1's project Siddha Eden Lakeville , situated at Lake View Park Road, Banhooghly, Kolkata, West Bengal-700108 on 17.09.2016. The Applicant No.1 alleged that the Respondent No. 1 had not passed on the benefit of ITC to him by way of commensurate reduction in prices and charged GST @12% on the amount due to him against payments. 2. The DGAP vide his Report dated 31.12.2020 has inter-alia submitted the following points :- a. The Applicant No. 1 submitted the following documents along with the application: i. E-mails of correspondence with Respondent No. 1 requesting to pass on the benefit of ITC. ii. Copies of Demand Letters and Allotment letter. 4 b. On receipt of the aforesaid reference from the Standing Committee on Anti- profiteering on 09.10.2019, a Notice under Rule 129 of the Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n or before 19.03.2020. In response to the Summons, the Respondent No. 1 submitted the documents vide e-mail dated 19.03.2020. g. In response to the Notice dated 22.10.2019 and subsequent reminders and summons, the Respondent No. 1 replied vide letters/emails dated 05.11.2019, 06.11.2019, 13.11.2019, 25.11.2019, 06.12.2019, 28.02.2020, 13.03.2020, 18.03.2020, 19.03.2020, 05.05.2020, 25.05.2020, 08.06.2020, 05.11.2020, 06.11.2020, 10.11.2020, 18.11.2020 and 24.11.2020. The Reply of the Respondent No. 1 was summed up as follows:- i. In the subject project i.e. Siddha Eden Lakeville, he was engaged as Landowner whereas, the Developer was M/s. Siddha Real Estate Private Limited. Further, all expenses in relation to construction activities of the project were borne out exclusively by Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 1 was neither incurring any expenditure nor claiming any GST ITC in respect of the impugned project. ii. The Respondent No. 1 submitted that Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of ITC shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. Howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y engaged in the business of real estate construction, development and other related activities. The Respondent No. 2 was undertaking construction of various projects and also providing various other services such as work contract services, business support services to associated enterprises, maintenance services etc. ii. The Respondent No. 2 had furnished the block wise details of the impugned project Siddha Eden Lake Ville in table -'A' below:- Table A' S.No. Blocks Phase RERA No. Eden's share Siddha's share Total Area (in Sq. Ft.) Unit Type Super Area Unit Type Super Area Unit Type Super Area 1 ISLET Phase I HIRA/P/NOR/2018/000183 41 51,247 90 1,09,815 131 1,61,062 2 LAGOON Phase I 50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as benefit of reduction in the rate of tax or ITC on the supply of Construction Service by the Respondent No. 1 2, on implementation of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and if so, ii. Whether such benefit was passed on by Respondent No. 1 2 to the recipients, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. I. The Respondent No. 1, vide e-mail dated 05.11.2020, submitted payment plan (part of Builder Buyer agreement), demand letters and payment receipts for the sale of flat no. HR/II/505 in Tower Harmony Block-2 to the Applicant No. 1, measuring 1090 square feet (super area), at total basic sale price of Rs. 50,66,150/-. m. At the outset, it was observed that the contention of the Respondent No. 1 that he would, compute the benefit on account of ITC of GST in respect of the project, at the end of the project and pass on the benefits that had accrued on account of GST, might have merit but the profiteering, if any, had to be determined at a given point of time, in terms of Rule 129(6) of the Rules. Therefore, the additional ITC available to the Respondent No. 1 2 and the amounts received by them from the Applicant No. 1 and other recipients post implementation of GST, had to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (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 and commercial shops which was under construction but not sold was provisional ITC which might be required to be reversed by the Respondent No. 2, if such units remain 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 Act and partly for effecting exempted supplies under the said Acts, the amount of credit shall be restricted to so much of the input tax as was attributable to the said taxable supplies including zero-rated supplies': Section 17 (3) The value of exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Total Turnover as per List of Horne Buyers including Landowner (Net of Cancellation) (E) 75,54,77,230 1,53,79,74,557 6. Total Saleable Area (in SQF) (F) 13,14,608 13,14,608 7. Total Sold Area relevant to Turnover (Net of Cancellation) (G) 4,37,230 7,94,698 8. Relevant CENVAT/ITC [(H)= (D)*(G)/(F)] 87,83,915 10,53,08,373 9. Ratio of CENVAT/Input Tax Credit to Turnover [(I)= (H)/(E) 1.16% 6.85% * Note: Since the Respondent No. 2 had availed the entire CENVAT/ITC for the project (including units pertaining to the Respondent No. 1), therefore CENVAT/ITC availed in Respondent No. 2's books was considered in above table. However, turnover of the Respondent No. 1 was also included at S. No. 5 as well area in S. No. 7 as the Respondent No. 1 was also required to pass on the benefit to his recipients (includi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Less: Base Price raised during July, 2017 to September, 2019 (Flats sold after 01.07.2017 and Price negotiated after ITC adjustments) F - 49,86,40,732 49,86,40,732 8. Net Base Price raised/collected during July, 2017 to September, 2019 (Rs.) G=E-F 64,55,63,988 39,37,69,837 1,03,93,33,825 9. GST @ 12% over Base Price H=G*12% 7,74,67,679 4,72,52,380 12,47,20,059 10. Total amount collected/raised by Respondent and Co-noticee I=G+H 72,30,31,667 44,10,22,217 1,16,40,53,884 11. Recalibrated Base Price J=(G)*(1-D) or 94.31% of (G) 60,88,31,397 37,13,64,333 98,01,95,730 12. GST @ 12% I=H*12% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing was with respect to 535 home buyers from whom consideration value had been raised/received by the Respondent No. 1 2 during the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019 (excluding the flats sold by the Respondent No. 2 post 01.07.2017). Whereas the Respondent No. 1 2 had booked total of 723 units in the whole project as on 30.09.2019, however no demands were raised from 44 home buyers, during the post-GST period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019. Therefore, if the ITC in respect of these 44 units was considered to calculate profiteering in respect of 535 units where demands had been raised after GST, the ITC as a percentage of turnover might be erroneous. Furthermore, the Respondent No. 1 2 had submitted that effective from 01.07.2017, they had sold 144 flats at the rates agreed by the customers and the consideration for such units had already factored benefit of ITC. The Respondent No. 2 claimed that Section 171 of the CGST could be applied only on the units the prices of which had been agreed before 01.07.2017 i.e. pre-GST customers since due to introduction of GST, the benefit of ITC had been accrued which should be computed and passed. In other words, the consideration of bookings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny, for the period post September, 2019, had not been examined as the exact quantum of ITC that would be available to the Respondent No. 1 2 in future could not be determined at this stage, when the Respondent No. 2 was continuing to avail ITC in respect of the present project. x. The DGAP has concluded that the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, requiring that any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of ITC shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices had been contravened by the Respondent No. 1 the Respondent No. 2 in the present case. 3. The above Report was carefully considered by this Authority and a Notice dated 05.01.2021 was issued to the Respondent No. 1 No. 2 to explain why the Report dated 31.12.2020 furnished by the DGAP should not be accepted and there liability for profiteering in violation of the provisions of Section 171 should not be fixed. The Respondent No. 1 was directed to file written submissions which had been filed on 19.01.2021 wherein the Respondent No. 1 had submitted:- a. He and the Respondent No. 2 (the Developer) had entered into a Joint Developm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and applicable laws and attending to all notices issued by concerned authorities f. That he was not incurring any cost related to construction and therefore no ITC related to construction had been availed for the said Project, no question of benefit in lieu of excess ITC availment should ensue. Further, any such Benefit enjoyed by the Respondent No. 2 had not been passed on to him neither in cash nor in kind i.e. by means of revision of percentage of allocated flats. Therefore, landowner could only pass on the benefit if the Respondent No. 2 passes on commensurate benefit to him. g. A similar case of Sattva Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs DGAP dated 14/06/2019, the Authority upheld the mechanism of DGAP to compute the amount of benefit as per the above referred mechanism i.e. availment of ITC to Turnover ratio in pre and post regime. Further, since it was an Allocation agreement between the landowner and the developer, the authority also ordered to pass on the benefit of the profiteered amount to the land owner who would in turn pass on the benefit to his buyers. 4. Copy of the above submissions dated 19.01.2021 filed by the Respondent No. 1 were supplied to the DGAP for s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 1 for purchase of flat and the prices had been agreed between the Respondent No. 1 and the Applicant No.1 and he did not have any privity of contract with the Applicant No. 1. Further, the Applicant No. 1 has filed his complaint against the Respondent No. 1 and not against him and the flat booked by the Applicant No.1 was pertaining to Respondent No. l's share of units. Therefore, he could not be covered under the investigation proceedings initiated by the DGAP. d. In this regard, he has referred Rule 129 of CGST Rules, 2017 and in the light of the above provisions, the DGAP could not conduct investigation against a third party who was not a supplier to the recipient. Thus, the anti-profiteering proceedings against the Respondent No. 2 should be dropped. e. He was only a conforming party in the agreement entered by Respondent No. 1 and Applicant No. 1. The same had been duly mentioned in clause 14.3 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 08.05.2015. The said clause provided that Siddha shall join the deed of transfer in favour of Eden's Transferees and shall execute and register the same in his capacity as a confirming party . f. As per Section 2(93) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd baseless. Section 171 of the CGST Act read with rules thereunder did not provide any provision wherein two distinct entities could be treated like a single entity merely because both had entered into Joint Development Agreement for a single project. The methodology adopted by the DGAP had violated the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act. j. ITC was not dependent of Turnover. The ITC was allowed in all cases for utilisation towards payment of output tax only. However, that by itself did not establish any direct relation with the turnover. ITC might be availed over a period of time without any output tax. Subsequently, output tax might be paid using accumulated ITC. Similarly, there was a possibility that output tax was discharged in cash first (in case of receipt of advance for services) and ITC might be availed later. Merely because ITC was utilized for payment of output tax could not establish any direct relation between the two. He still depend on different activities, viz. ITC based on the taxable expenditure incurred, and output tax based on the milestone billing to customers. The turnover reflected the amount collected by him as per payment or booking plans issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reported at 2017 CompLR 586 (CCI). n. He has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi HC in the case of Man Realty Ltd. vs UOI Ors. (dated 27.01.2021 in W.P. (C) 997/2021) vide which the Court was pleased to direct the Respondents to verify whether there were any directions issued u/r 133(5) in respect of other homebuyers. o. The analogy drawn by the DGAP by reading the phrase any supply in Rule 129 was irrelevant. Further, the phrase any supply had been used in context of reduction in rate of supplies and not for the benefit of ITC. P. He collected from his customers not only value of taxable construction services, rather he also collected value of land from his customers. Further, Sale of land and, subject to clause (b) of paragraph 5 of Schedule II, sale of building was not treated as supply as per Schedule III of the CGST Act. Further, it was submitted that sale of land was covered by stamp duty regulations and appropriate stamp duty was paid on the same. Accordingly, it was submitted that calculation of profiteering should be excluded from value of land from his computation. Further, it was critical to mention here that GST provisions treats value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. B.C. Srinivasa Setty. s. Section 171 of the CGST Act was not applicable in case of transaction of supplies between the Respondent No. 2 and the Landowner in respect of allotment of units as part of the development agreement. The development agreement between the Respondent No. 2 and the Landowner was under area sharing model wherein the Respondent constructed the project wherein certain units were allotted to Landowner and the remaining units were retained by the Respondent No. 2. In the present arrangement, there was no monetary consideration involved which the Landowner was providing to the Respondent for the said share of his units. In other words, there was no price which Landowner was providing to the Respondent No. 2 and accordingly, there could not be any commensurate reduction of prices by the Respondent. t. Section 171 of the CGST Act was not applicable in the facts of the present case. Neither reduction in rate of tax on supply of goods / services nor benefit of ITC had been defined in the CGST Act. Reduction in rate of tax on supply of goods / services would mean a reduction in the rate of tax on goods /services supplied by a regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GAP's Report was liable to be set aside based on this ground alone. 6. The above submissions dated 16.02.2021 of the Respondent No. 2 were supplied to the DGAP to file his clarifications under Rule 133 (2A) of the CGST Rules, 2017. In response, the DGAP filed his supplementary report dated 03.03.2021 vide which he has inter-alia stated that:- a. The objections raised by the Respondent No. 2 have been duly covered in the Report dated 31.12.2020. b. Profiteering, if any, had to be computed considering the whole project as a whole irrespective of allocation of Developer or Landowner in order to remove any discrimination among the buyers only because of their purchase of the unit from one party rather than other party. Further, the agreement with the buyers was also signed by both, Respondent No. 1 No. 2 jointly. Further, vide para-30 of the Report dated 31.12.2020, the DGAP had determined the additional amount of ITC or the profiteering amount to the tune of Rs. 4,11,40,502/- which included GST @12% on the base amount of Rs. 3,67,32,591/-to be passed on by the Respondent No. 1 to his recipients. Since the Developer i.e. the Respondent No. 2 had availed the entire CEN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t deny passing on the benefit pertaining to the Respondent No. l's share in the project. f. The methodology adopted by the DGAP was correct and strictly as per law enshrined in Section 171 of the CGST Act. The methodology had been consistently adopted by the DGAP and upheld by Authority in all similar cases. In order to quantify the benefit of ITC, it was necessary to quantify the credits available to the Respondent No. 2 in the pre-GST regime and also the credits available in the GST regime. Further, the Respondent No. 2 discharged his output GST liability by utilizing the ITC available to him in addition to the credit which was not available to him in pre-GST period. However, the Respondent collected or charged full GST from the customers or flat buyers. Therefore, the Respondent No. 2 was not required to pay anything from his own pocket to pass on the benefit of additional ITC accrued to him in GST period. Hence, the methodology adopted by the DGAP was correct and justifiable. Further in the Report dated 31.12.2020, the increase in ITC as a percentage of total taxable turnover availed by the Respondent No. 2 post-GST has been quantified. The input or input service wise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... development rights. Hence, Section 171 could not be made applicable. 9. The Applicant No. 1 has also filed his submissions vide various e-mails and has submitted that the Respondent has profiteered in the present case by not passing on the benefit of additional ITC accrued to the Respondent and was forcing him to sign the deed with the clause that I will not claim any ITC . 10. The proceedings in the matter could not be completed by Authority with in prescribed time limit due to the lack of required quorum of Members in the Authority during the period from 29.04.2021 to 23.02.2022 and the minimum quorum was restored only w.e.f. 23.02.2022. Personal Hearing was held by this Authority on 13.06.2022. It was attended by the Applicant no. 1 and Authorised Representatives of the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 as well as the DGAP. 11. This Authority has carefully considered the Reports filed by the DGAP, all the submissions and the documents placed on record, and the arguments advanced by the Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 1 2 during the hearing. It is clear from the plain reading of Section 171 (1) that it deals with two situations: - one relating to the passin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents executed. With respect to the above contention of the Respondent No. 1, this Authority finds that the Respondent No. 1 has not incurred any cost related to construction of the project and therefore, no ITC related to construction services had been availed by him. The DGAP vide his Report dated 31.12.2020 has computed the profiteered amount to the tune of Rs. 4,11,40,502/- which was to be passed on by the Respondent No. 1 to his customers/flat buyers/recipients in the said Project. Since the Respondent No. 2 had availed the entire CENVAT/ITC for the project (including units pertaining to the Respondent No. 1), therefore, this Authority finds that the aforesaid profiteered amount has to be passed on by the Respondent No. 2 to the Respondent No. 1 who in turn is required to pass on the benefit to his recipients. b. The Respondent No. 2 has further contended that the Applicant No. 1 has filed his complaint against the Respondent No. 1 and not against him. Also, the flat booked by the Applicant No. 1 pertained to the share of the Respondent No. 1 and thus, the Applicant No. 1 had entered into agreement with the Respondent No. 1 and not with him. Hence, he being a third party in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es with respect to the subject Project, he has been rightly investigated by the DGAP. Therefore, the contention of the Respondent No. 2 in this regard was untenable. c. The Respondent No. 2 has further contended that the investigation cannot go beyond the application filed by the Applicant No. 1. In this regard, the Authority notes that, in terms of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, it is mandated that, Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of ITC shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices . Thus the legal requirement is abundantly clear that in the event of a benefit of ITC or reduction in rate of tax, there must be a commensurate reduction in prices of the any supply of goods or services. The said provision provides for 'any supply', which expand the scope to cover all supplies; where tax reduction or ITC benefit has not been passed on. Therefore, the law prescribes that benefit of reduction in rate of tax or benefit of increase in ITC, in relation to any supply of goods or services should result in commensurate reduction in prices of such supply and accordingly, the DGAP had to exa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt only on the value after availing abatement towards value of land as provided under various Notifications issued from time to time. The turnovers considered by the DGAP, while calculating the profiteered amount in the present case, are such taxable turnovers only. Hence, the value of land already stands excluded from the calculation of the profiteered amount by the DGAP in its Report. Further, the case of M/s. Fusion Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. cited by the Respondent No. 2 does not support his contention, as in Fusion case, the DGAP had computed the benefit of ITC not passed on i.e. the profiteered amount considering the total consideration raised/collected from the Applicant No.1 and other recipients during the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018 and charged GST @ 12% (after abatement for Land) which was mentioned in para-18 of the Order No. 71/2019 dated 13.12.2019 passed by the Authority. Hence, this contention of the Respondent is not tenable. e. The Respondent No. 2 has also contended that in absence of specified procedure and mechanism of calculation of profiteering the proceedings are arbitrary and liable to be dropped. In this regard, the Authority finds that the 'Proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and hence the amount of benefit of additional ITC to be passed on in respect of one project would not be similar to another project. Issuance of Occupancy Certificate/ Completion Certificate would also affect the amount of benefit of ITC as no such benefit would be available once the above certificates are issued. Therefore, no set parameters can be fixed for determining the methodology to compute the benefit of additional ITC which would be required to be passed on to the buyers of such units. Further, the facts of the cases relating to the Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCGs), restaurants, construction, and cinema houses are completely different and therefore, the mathematical methodology employed in the case of one sector cannot be applied in the other sector otherwise it would result in denial of the benefit to the eligible recipients. Moreover, both the above benefits have been granted by the Central as well as the State Governments by sacrificing their tax revenue in the public interest hence the suppliers are not required to pay even a single penny from their pocket, and hence they have to pass on the above benefits as per the provisions of Section 171 (1). Hence, the Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... months is to cover a reasonable period just before the GST so that a proper assessment of percentage of ITC available to the Respondent could be arrived at. Further, during this period there was no variation in rate of tax on services and prior to that there were several changes in the rate of service tax as well as changes in the conditions for eligibility of availment of CENVAT Credit of Service Tax and Excise Duty including rate of abatement etc. which would result in distorted picture of CENVAT. Thus, this period was taken to find out the average ratio of ITC availability with turnover. The ratio of ITC and turnover in Pre-GST is compared with ratio of ITC in post GST. The period during the GST period may be one month or one year, depending upon the period of investigation. It does not mean that, if the period is larger, the availability of ITC would increase or decrease, but, it only gives a ratio which represents the period for comparison. It is a standard practice by the DGAP to take pre-GST period from 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017 which has been followed in all cases. These cases have been upheld by this Authority. Therefore, the contention raised by the Respondent is not tena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount profiteered, starting from the date from which the amount was profiteered till the date of passing on/ payment/return, as per provisions of Rule 133 (3) (b) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 16. The complete list of homebuyers/customers/recipients of supply has been attached with this Order, with the details of profiteered amount to be passed on/returned/refunded along with interest @ 18% in respect of the project Siddha Eden Lakeview' of the Respondent No. 1 2 as in the Annexure-A and Annexure-B respectively. 17. The Authority also order that the profiteered amount of Rs. 4,11,40,502/- (in respect of the Respondent No. 1) and Rs. 2,50,94,164/- (in respect of the Respondent No. 2), for the project 'Siddha Eden Lakeview' along with the interest @ 18% from the date of receiving of profiteered amount from the homebuyers/customers/recipients of supply till the date of passing on of the benefit of ITC i.e. profiteered amount shall be paid/passed on by the Respondent No. 1 2 within a period of 3 months from the date of this order failing which it shall be recovered as per the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. 18. It is evident from the above narration of facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the benefit of ITC which would become available to them till the date of issue of Completion Certificate. Accordingly, the concerned jurisdictional Commissioner CGST/SGST are directed to ensure that the Respondent passes on the benefit of ITC to the eligible homebuyers /customers /recipients of supply as per the methodology approved by this Authority in the present case and submit report to this Authority through the DGAP. The Applicant No. 1 or any other interested party/person shall also be at liberty to file complaint against the Respondent before the West Bengal State Screening Committee in case the remaining benefit of ITC is not passed on to them. 23. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide its Order dated 10.02.2020 in the case of Nestle India Ltd. Anr. Vs. Union of India has held that:- We also observe that prima facie, it appears to us that the limitation of period of six months provided in Rule 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017 within which the authority should make its order from the date of receipt of the report of the Directorate General of Anti Profiteering, appears to be directory in as much as no consequence of non-adherence of the said period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
