9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on report dated 29.10.2020 of the DGAP in the case of M/s Maheshwari Infratech Pvt Ltd. (Respondent) in respect of the projects other than the 'U-Faria'. 2. The DGAP vide his Investigation Report dated 29.10.2020 had reported that the Respondent had profiteered an amount of Rs. 24,14,761/- (excluding the benefit received by the shop buyers) while executing the 'U-Faria' project which was required to be passed on to the shop buyers. 3. The NM vide Order No. 79/2022 dated 30.09.2022 had determined the profiteered amount as Rs. 24,78,383/- and not as Rs. 24,14,761/- during the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019 on the ground that the Respondent had not passed on benefit of Rs. 63,622/- as was reported by the DGAP and ordere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermine the quantum thereof and indicate the same in their reply to the Notice as well as furnish all the supporting documents. ii. The period covered by the current investigation is from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2022. iii. In response to the Notice dated 19.10.2022, the Respondent replied vide email letter dated 03.11.2022 that he had executed only one housing Project U- Faria and he was not executing any other project. iv. In order to verify Respondent's claim that he had not undertaken any project other than "U-Faria", the details of Respondent's projects registered with UP Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) were checked online from the UP RERA website and it was observed that the Respondent has executed only U-Faria projec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been any profiteering by the Respondent and found that no other project has been executed by the Respondent except the project "U-Faria", Profiteering in respect of which has already been determined by the NAA vide its order dated 30.09.2022. 7. The above fact has also been corroborated from the website of the UP RERA as well as the reply of the Commissioner State Tax UP as per the report of the DGAP. 8. In view of above facts, the Commission finds that the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted in the case of the other projects of the Respondent and therefore, the proceedings are accordingly dropped against the Respondent. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the Respondent and the DGAP free of cost. File o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
