2018 (9) TMI 1107 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – TMI – Anti-profiteering action – Failure to pass on the benefit of Input tax credit – Construction service – migration to GST Scheme – non-compliance of the provisions of Section 171 – Held that:- It is absolutely clear that the excess ITC was available to the Respondent the benefit of which he was required to pass on to the Applicants. The Respondent cannot appropriate this benefit as this is a concession given by the Government from it’s own tax revenue to reduce the prices being charged by the builders from the vulnerable section of society which cannot afford high value apartments. The Respondent is not being asked to extend this benefit out of his own account and he is only liable to pass on the benefit of ITC to which he has become entitled by virtue of the grant of ITC on the Construction Service by the Government.
–
Profiteering – calculation based on turnover – the Applicants had disputed these calculations and su
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
from the date of the receipt of the excess amount from each buyer, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.
–
It is evident from the above that the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by him under the above Policy in contravention of the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus realized more price from them than he was entitled to collect and has also compelled them to pay more GST than that they were required to pay by issuing incorrect tax invoices and hence he has committed an offence under section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty.
–
The Authority, as per Rule 136 of the CGST Rules 2017 directs the Commissioner of State Tax Haryana to monitor this order under the supervision of the DGAP by ensuring that the amount profiteered by the Respondent as ordered by the Authority is passed on to the all the buyers. A report in compli
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
are:- S.No. S/Sh. Email ID 1 Sukhbir Rohilla* sukhbirrohilla001@gmail.com 2 Himanshu Sethi* winiscertain@gmail.com 3 Rajender Kumar* rajender.kumar20865@gmail.com 4 Deepak Kumar* fialok.deepak@gmail.com 5 Gaurav Rohilla, Nitesh Rohilla, Surender Rohilla* sukhbirrohilla001@gmail.com 6 Razia Hamind17@gmail.com 7 Aarek Mehrotra* smarty.aarekh@gmail.com 8 Neeraj Dale* neeraj.dale@gmail.com 9 Kuldeep Maan kuldeepmaan007@gmail.com 10 Alok Tyagi* aloktyagi53@gmail.com 11 Mayank Saxena mail.msaxena@gmail.com 12 Yogesh Upadhyay yogeshdus@gmail.com 13 Parteek Sharma* prateek.psharma@gmail.com 14 Kamal Valecha* kamal_valecha0211@yahoo.co.in 15 Narottam Singh* nrttm_singh@yahoo.co.in 16 Rahul Kapoor* rkapoor_87@rediffmail.com 17 Vinod Khanduja* vinoddhiraj@gamil.com 18 Pradeep Jangra* pradeepjangra87@gmail.com 19 Amarjeet Kumar* ca.amarjeet@gmail.com 20 Badri Narayan Meena* ritesbn@gmail.com 21 Harsh Awasthi hawasthi@gmail.com 22 Saurav Kumar Aggarwal* lavi22oct@gmail.com 23 Ravi Verma ravics136@g
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d from them as Service Tax was exempted, however, after the implementation of the above Act, 12% Goods & Services Tax (GST) was levied on the construction service in place of Excise Duty and VAT w.e.f. 01.07.2017, which was further reduced to 8% w.e.f. 25.01.2018 but the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) which was available to the Respondent and which was much more than the output tax liability of the Respondent had not been passed on to them and therefore the Applicants should not have been burdened with the entire GST of 12% or 8%. They had further alleged that the Respondent had not agreed with the contention of the Applicants that the Respondent was charging 12% and 8% GST and was simultaneously also enjoying the benefit of ITC and was not giving the benefit of the ITC, had claimed that the Respondent was contravening the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Accordingly they had filed several applications with the Haryana Screening Committee for appropriate redressa
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
der.kumar20865@gmail.com 5 Sukhbir Rohilla/Surinder Kumar* sukhbirrohilla001@gmail.com 6 Aarekh Mehrotra* smarty.aarekh@gmail.com 7 Neeraj Dale* neeraj.dale@gmail.com 8 Alok Tyagi* aloktyagi53@gmail.com 9 Kamal Valecha* kamal_valecha0211@yahoo.co.in 10 Narottam Singh* nrttm_singh@yahoo.co.in 11 Vinod Khanduja* vinoddhiraj@gmail.com 12 Amarjeet Kumar* ca.amarjeet@gmail.com 13 B N Meena* ritesbn@gmail.com 14 Saurav Kumar Aggarwal* star_sas2010@yahoo.com 15 Udayan kishore Mishra* udayankishoremishra@gmail.com 16 Zeeshan Ali Quazi* er.zeeshan99@gmail.com 17 Sunil Jha* lakshyaskjha@gmail.com 18 Rajesh Kumar* rajeshkumar.cs06@gmail.com 19 Vikas Garg* sperry.it@gmail.com 20 Bharat Bhushan* bbbadesra@gmail.com 21 Kamlesh Mishra kmishrabhu@gmail.com 22 Anil Dwivedi* anilcs250@gmail.com 23 Ravi Gumber ravigumber1985@gmail.com 24 Praveen Kumar Sharma praveensha77@gmail.com 25 Abhishek Yadav abhishekyadav.nnl@gmail.com 26 Ashish Gupta mnit.ashish2006@gmail.com 27 Rahul Rajoriya rahul.rajoriya08@gm
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
njha80@yahoo.com 52 Ratnesh kumar Singh ratnesh6672@gmail.com 53 Vishal Kapoor vishalkapoor1983@gmail.com 54 Amit Kumar amitthakurlic@yahoo.in 55 Jitendra Kumar joyapuru@gmail.com 56 Kunal Malhotra malhotra.kunal91@gmail.com 57 Vidit Sharma vidit.sharma1@hotmail.com 58 Dikshant Singh dikshantraghav@gmail.com 59 Harindra Pal Nagda harindranagda@hotmail.com 60 Shamik Singha Roy shamik_sr@rediffmail.com 61 Smitha Sreekumar jofinmathew @gmail.com 62 Gaurav Kumar* gauravrohilla89@gmail.com 63 Rohit Chopra rohit.chopra@bestechgroup.com 64 Ashutosh Fotedar ashutoshfotedar@gmail.com 65 Kapil Aggarwal kapil_a2005@rediffmail.com 66 Gaurav Singla singla.gaurav9@gmail.com 67 Pankaj Kumar pankaj@nsk.com 68 Sandeep Sharma sandeep.121.sharma@gmail.com 69 Kiran Mishra kiranmishra.2007@gmail.com 70 Saurabh Jain saurabhs20@yahoo.com 71 Nitesh Rohilla* nitesh.rohilla001@gmail.com 72 Rajdeep Yadav yadav_raj7@rediffmail.com 73 Sachin Batheja sachin.batheja@yahoo.com 74 Souvik Ghosh souvik.ghosh@hotmail.co.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
udallar ganeshanec@gmail.com 98 Deepak Jain deepakjain20@gmail.com 99 Deepak Fialok* fialok.deepak@gmail.com 100 Gagan Nagpal writetogagan@gmail.com 101 Abhishek Kapoor abhishek.kapoorajm@gmail.com 102 Yogesh Kumar yogesh4697@gmail.com *Applicants who have filed more than one application. 3. The Director General Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), after completing the investigation has submitted his Report under Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017 on 24.05.2018 followed by his subsequent reports submitted on 01.08.2018 and 28.08.2018. The Report of the DGAP mentions 109 Applicants out of the 138 Applicants out of which in as much as 26 have filed duplicate applications and 2 have submitted triplicate applications. 4. The DGAP in his report has stated that a notice was issued to the Respondent under Rule 129 of the CGST Rules, 2017 to submit his reply regarding the allegations that the benefit of ITC had not been passed on to the above Applicants on the purchase of the flats and also to suo moto
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ls purchased during Apr-Sept., 2017. 10. Annexure-1 (Pre-GST impact of Input Tax Credit on Cost). 11. Annexure-2 (Cost Sheet Performa for Goods/Services). 12. Input Tax Credit (VAT) Ledger Account for the period 2016-17. 13. Summary of purchased materials/inputs. 14. VAT and GST Returns 15. Project Report submitted to RERA 5. The report further states that the Respondent had admitted that the ITC was not available during the year 2016-17 but it was available from 01.07.2017 after introduction of the GST. The Respondent had also submitted the following data as has been depicted in the Table below to show that the ITC on Excise Duty, Countervailing Duty (CVD) and capital goods which was not available earlier was now available:- S. No. Nature of pre-GST Tax Total Amount (In Rs.) 1 Excise Duty/CVD included in cost, now available as ITC 46,91,507/- 2 Credit on Capital Goods capitalized not available earlier but now available 2,05,50,719/- 3 Central Sales Tax (CST) For material 12,04,661/- f
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
also claimed that in the case of this Scheme the Respondent could charge only a fixed price not exceeding ₹ 4000/- per sq. ft. carpet area plus taxes, as had been provided under the Policy and in the present case, the maximum price had not been exceeded by him. The Respondent had further claimed that out of the total GST incidence, 50% (6% out of 12% GST) was towards SGST, whereas he was earlier availing ITC on the State VAT and the difference after utilizing the ITC was being paid in cash, therefore, the ITC being allowed was not an additional benefit and the GST liability was not entirely covered by the ITC available to the Respondent. The Respondent had also claimed that he was required to pay GST on the sub-contracted work which was an additional cost to him whereas Service Tax was exempted in the past. He had further claimed that there had been tremendous increase in the prices of inputs including Steel due to which no profiteering could be alleged against him. 7. The DGAP
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
thin 18 months of allotment 15-03-2017 12.50% 257955 0 13543 0 0 271498 6 Within 24 months of allotment 15-09-2017 12.50% 257955 0 0 15477 15477 288910 7 Within 30 months of allotment 15-03-2018 12.50% 257955 0 0 10318 10318 278591 Total 1805685 17634 67713 25796 25796 1942623 8. The DGAP has also informed that complaints were lodged in respect of the two projects viz. (1) Urban Homes, Sector 70A, Gurugram and (2) Urban Homes, Sector-86, Gurugram which are being executed by the Respondent under the above Policy. He has further informed that after perusal of the application filed by the Respondent before the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and as per para 5 (i) of the Policy, it was clear that the maximum sale price per sq. feet carpet area had been fixed at ₹ 4,000/- and no minimum rate had been prescribed and hence, the Respondent could not claim that there was restriction on reducing the price. The DGAP has also submitted that the Respondent s claim that Section
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
on the Excise Duty paid on inputs or Service Tax paid on the input services, but the report also admits that post GST the ITC was available on all the goods and services, therefore considering the submissions of the Respondent that the net taxable value for the year 2016-17 was ₹ 1,64,52,87,429/- on which VAT liability on him was ₹ 14,91,04,173/-, the DGAP has estimated the VAT liability of the Respondent as 9% of the net taxable value (abated value) and 5.098% of the gross amount of ₹ 2,92,49,55,429/- received from the Applicants. 11. The DGAP has also reported that on examination of the GSTR-3B Returns filed by the Respondent it was revealed that the ratio between the taxable turnover and the ITC availed by him in the post-GST era w.e.f. July 2017 to February 2018 was 7.20%. 12. The DGAP has also mentioned that the Central Government had imposed 18% GST with effective rate of 12% in view of 1/3rd abatement on value on the Construction Service vide Notification No.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
6853 86950611 Taxable Turnover 2924955429 76935214 3001890643 725620566 482186312 1207806878 ITC ratio to Taxable Value () 0.74 14.92 1.1 10.22 2.65 7.2 Addition al ITC availed (%) 6.1 Tax Rate 5.25% (VAT) 5.25%(VAT) 12%(GST) 8%(GST) 13. Based on above data the DGAP has concluded that the ITC available to the Respondent during the pre-GST period from April 2016 to June 2017 was 1.10% of the taxable turnover and during the post-GST period from July 2017 to February 2018, the ITC available to the Respondent was 7.20% of the taxable turnover and thus there was additional benefit of ITC to the tune of 6.10% (7.20%-1.10%) in the post-GST era, covering the period from July 2017 to February 2018 to the Respondent. The DGAP has also stated that for the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 24.01.2018 while the additional ITC available was 6.10% of the taxable turnover, the tax rate had increased by 6.75 % (12%-5.25%), leaving no benefit of ITC to be passed on to the Applicants. On the other hand, during
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the other allottees who had not filed complaints and this amount was required to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund as they were not identifiable. 14. After perusal of the DGAP s report the Authority in its meeting held on 5.07.2018 had decided to hear the Applicants and the Respondent on 23.07.2018. Accordingly notices were issued to all the interested parties. On behalf of the Applicants Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jain, Bharat Bhushan and 6 other Applicants appeared and the DGAP was represented by Sh. Akshat Aggarwal Assistant Commissioner and Sh. Bhupender Goyal, Assistant Director (Costs). On the request of the parties another hearing was held on 01.08.2018 wherein S/Sh. Bharat Bhushan and R. K. Jain along with 12 other Applicants had appeared. During both the hearings the Respondent was represented by Sh. Dinesh Sharma, Managing Director along with Sh. J. P. Gaur, Chief Finance Officer, who submitted their written submissions, on 1st August, 2018. 15. In his written submissions, the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
lready incurred or which were to be incurred. The Respondent has also claimed that the expenditure on land, license approvals and External Development Charges (EDC) was required to be incurred before start of the construction and hence the initial payments on application, allotment and few periodical installments were meant for funding the above mentioned costs which on an average amounted to 40-45% of the total revenue from the Applicants. The Respondent has also claimed that the percentage of expenditure on construction was far more than the percentage of collections made from the Applicants. He has also argued that besides construction cost there were other expenses as had been mentioned above which needed to be considered before arriving at the profit margin. 16. The Respondent has further submitted that though the benefit of ITC was made available, the basic cost of the raw material had increased abnormally which had resulted in setting off of the benefit of ITC. the Respondent ha
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
this extra amount charged by subcontractors had not been considered as the part of the cost in the post-GST period. 18. The Respondent has also alleged that while he had received 62.50% of the payment due during the pre-GST period, the amount spent on construction during this period was only 25% of the total cost and hence he would receive 37.50% of total payment due during the post-GST period when he would have to spend 75% of the total cost on construction. The Respondent has also claimed that the initial consideration paid by the Applicants was towards the cost incurred/ to be incurred by him against the cost of land, licenses, approvals, administrative and financial expenses which amounted to 40-45% of the total revenue from the Applicants. He has also submitted that while calculating the ITC against the taxable value during the pre-GST period, the taxable value should be accordingly adjusted by giving effect to the above issues during the pre-GST and post-GST period and percentage
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
issions made by the Applicants are summarized below:- 21. The Applicants did not agree with the DGAP s report which stated that the profiteering was only to the extent of 3.35%. They claimed that the amount of profiteering was 6.10%. They also claimed that the Respondent had recovered VAT @ 5.25% from the Applicants but had paid the Government @ 5.09%. They also requested for imposition of penalty and for early disposal of the case so that the benefit if any was provided to them before the last installment was paid to the Respondent. 22. They also claimed that the increase or decrease in cost on account of the factors other than tax rate and ITC was not to be considered for the purpose of profiteering. They further claimed that the maximum rate of ₹ 4,000/- per sq. ft. carpet area was fixed and any escalation in the cost had already been taken into account at the time of fixing of the above rate. They also submitted that any increase or decrease in the raw material prices was a m
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
t the Respondent had burdened them with extra tax when they were eligible for levy of reduced tax. 24. The Applicants have also pleaded that huge amount of ITC was available to the Respondent which had been availed by him from September, 2017 to February, 2018. This ITC was approximately ₹ 8.70 Crores and was utilized to the extent of ₹ 5.40 Crores for payment of GST by him. They also pleaded that the Respondent was fully aware that the ITC should have been passed on to the buyers after re-calibrating the price, which had not been done deliberately by him which attracted penal provisions under the anti-profiteering law. 25. The Applicants have also attached copies of the e-mail dated 14.07.2018 and reminders dated 21.07.2018 & 26.07.2018 sent by their Association to the Respondent requesting him to extend the benefit of ITC which the Respondent had failed to respond to. 26. Finally the applicants have alleged that during the period between 01.07.2017 to 24.01.2018 the b
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
s who had filed complaints as all the buyers were identifiable. 28. The Authority had sought certain clarifications based on the submissions made by the Applicants and the Respondent and in reply to the letter dated 11th June, 2018 and the directions given during the hearing held on 23rd July, 2018, the DGAP in his reply dated 1st August, 2018 has submitted that for the period before 01.07.2017 the output rate of VAT on the Respondent was 5.25% with an ITC of 1.1% and during the period between 01.07.2017 to 24.01.2018, the output rate of GST was 12% but an additional ITC of 6.1% (7.2%-1.1%) was available to the Respondent, which should have been passed on to the Applicants and 12% GST should have been charged on such reduced amount and therefore, the effective output rate of tax for the Respondent would be 12% of 93.9 (100-6.1) =11.27%. He has also submitted that similarly, for the period after 25.01.2018, the output rate of GST was 8% but additional ITC of 6.1% (7.2%-1.1%) was availab
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
7; 3756/- per sq. ft. He has further stated that during the period between 30.06.2017 to 24.01.2018, the installment including GST should be ₹ 3756+12% GST= ₹ 4207/-per sq. ft., however, the Respondent had charged ₹ 4000 + 12% GST i.e. ₹ 4480/- which amounted to profiteering of = 6.1% (4480-4207/4480 x 100). He has further stated that during the period between 25.01.2018 to 31.03.2018, the installment including GST should be ₹ 3756 + 8% GST= ₹ 4056/- per sq. ft., however, the Applicants had been charged ₹ 4000 + 8% GST i.e. ₹ 4320/- which came to profiteering of = 6.1% (4320-4056/4320 x 100) and hence 6.1% of the amount paid by the Applicants during the entire period from 01.07.2017 to 28.02.2018 was the profiteered amount. 29. We have carefully examined the DGAP s Report, the written and oral submissions of both the Applicants and the Respondent placed on record. The issues to be decided by the Authority are as under:- (a.) Whether there
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
on 171 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. In the instant case though rationalization of tax had not resulted in the reduction in the tax rate, the benefit of ITC had been extended to all the goods and services which were utilized by any builder which was not available in the pre-GST era. This fact has not been denied by the Respondent. Since Section 171 not only deals with passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax but also deals with passing on the benefit of ITC therefore the contention made by the Respondent is legally not correct to the extent that there had been increase in the rate of tax from 5.25% to 12% and then 8% and no benefit could be passed on by him to the Applicants as the Respondent had become entitled to claim ITC the benefit of which was required to be passed on by him to the Applicants as per the provisions of Sect
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
and Medium Potential Towns ₹ 3600/ – per sq. ft. upto and limited to 100 sq. ft., as permitted in the approved building plans. c. Low Potential Towns ₹ 3000/ – per sq. ft. Based on the above Policy the Respondent had submitted his Project Report to the RERA stating that the maximum sale price for each flat would be ₹ 4000/- per sq. ft. carpet area. Therefore, the claim of the Respondent that the price was fixed at ₹ 4000/- by the Haryana Government is incorrect as he had himself made offer of selling the flats at the above rate. It is also clear from the perusal of the above para that the above price was the maximum price and there was no restriction on the Respondent to charge less price. The Respondent had chosen to collect the maximum rate fixed by the Policy and therefore his plea that the rate reduction was not possible was not correct. Moreover the rate offered by the Respondent did not include taxes and it is a fact that the Applicants had paid 5.25% VAT
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
hich had become available to him on the GST which had been paid by the Applicants. 32. It is also revealed from the VAT returns filed by the Respondent that he had paid an amount of ₹ 14,91,04,173/- as VAT for a taxable turnover of ₹ 1,64,5287,429/- during the year 2016-17 and his VAT liability was 9% of the net taxable value and his liability was 5.098% of the unabated gross value of ₹ 2,92,49,55,429/-. During the year 2017-18 for the first quarter the taxable turnover was ₹ 7,69,35,214/- while the output tax liability was ₹ 39,21,893/-. Thus the total taxable turnover of these two periods was ₹ 30,01,89,06,44/- while the output tax liability was ₹ 15,30,26,066/- and the ratio of ITC to the taxable turnover was 1.10%. Similarly the taxable value for the period from July 2017 to February 2018 was ₹ 1,20,78,06,878/- while the tax liability was ₹ 12,56,42,894/- and the ITC ratio to taxable turnover was 7.20%. These facts have also not
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d the entire amount of tax liability had been paid through ITC, which shows that the entire 12% GST liability was paid through ITC while 12% GST was being collected by him from the Applicants. Therefore this Authority is of the view that the ratio of the ITC to the taxable turnover calculated by the DGAP is correct and the Respondent has not placed any concrete facts or reasons on record to dispute the same. 33. The Respondent has pleaded that since the cost of Steel one of the major raw materials had increased this increase should have been accounted for before alleging profiteering. This argument of the Respondent is not tenable since he had himself offered the maximum price of ₹ 4000/- and there was no provision of revision of this price on the basis of escalation in the price of the raw material in the Policy. The Applicants have also rightly objected to this pleading stating that the price fluctuations were considered at the time of fixing of the rate of ₹ 4000/- per s
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
application, 20% at the time of allotment and 75% balance of the total cost shall be paid in equated six monthly installments spread over three year period. One of the grievances of the Applicants is that 25% of total sale consideration which had been paid at the time of signing of the Buyer s Agreements had earned interest for the Respondent, which had not been taken into consideration while fixing the cost of the flats. Therefore the contention of the Respondent that the cost factor should be taken into account is not valid and justifiable as there is no escalation clause in the Agreement and the Respondent has also availed benefit of interest on the amount paid by the Applicants. 34. One of the arguments advanced by the Respondent is that in the pre-GST regime there was no tax liability on the sub-contractors and in the post-GST era the tax levied on the sub-contractors was to be borne by the Respondent. This argument is also not tenable because the entire amount is eligible for ITC
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
be settled is that what was the extent of the profiteering. The DGAP had originally reported that the profiteering was nil for the period from July, 2017 to January, 2018 and 3.35% for the period between 26th January, 2018 to February, 2018 if the tax was levied @ 12% & 8% respectively. However the Applicants had disputed these calculations and submitted that the actual benefit that the Respondent has to pass on to all of them was to the extent of 6.1% for both the periods when the tax was levied @ 12% as well as when the tax was levied at @ 8%. In his subsequent report called for by the Authority from the DGAP, he has submitted the revised calculations which are reproduced below. The total amount of profiteering as calculated by the DGAP is also mentioned in the subsequent table:- Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Basic Sale Price Collected for both the projects (Rs.) Jul-17 A – Aug-17 B 72,49,48,683 Sep.17 C 1,59,171 Oct,17 D – Nov.17 E 2,58,475 Dec.17 F 2,54,237 Jan.18 G – Total Basic
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
amount of ₹ 8,13,40,831/-. However, the Authority has taken the basic principle followed by the DGAP i.e. 6.1% of profiteering and accordingly the amount of profiteering has been calculated for each type of flat to arrive at the profiteering amount for each and every buyer depending upon the type of flat he has purchased. In view of the above the Authority determines the amount of profiteering as ₹ 8,22,80,998/- for all the 2476 flats. 38. The DGAP has calculated the profiteering @ 6.1% on the base price of ₹ 4000/- per sq. ft. and accordingly calculated tax amount on the reduced payment. The calculations made by the DGAP are placed below which are correct and the Authority is in full agreement with the same:- Head Row Profiteering Calculation X Calculation GST @12% GST @8% Rate (Per Sq. Ft.) A 4000 4000 Profiteering @6.1% B 244 244 New Rate (Per Sq. Ft.) C A-B 3756 3756 GST @X% D X% of C 450.72 300.48 Total Amount to Be Charged E C+D 4206.72 4056.48 Amount Already Ch
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
buyer at the time of collecting the last installment along with the interest @ 18% per annum to be calculated from the date of the receipt of the excess amount from each buyer, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. 41. It is evident from the above that the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by him under the above Policy in contravention of the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus realized more price from them than he was entitled to collect and has also compelled them to pay more GST than that they were required to pay by issuing incorrect tax invoices and hence he has committed an offence under section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice be issued to him directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed under Section 122 of the above Act read with rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =