NAA holds Respondent as not liable to pass on the benefit of ITC to the Applicant.
Forum: National Anti-Profiteering Authority
The Applicant No. 1 had purchased a flat in the Respondent’s project “Aryan Founttain at the time of booking and demanded 12% GST on the pending amount which had resulted in double taxation, whereas the construction done after the GST implementation which he had not passed on. The DGAP’s officers had visited the premises of the Respondent and collected the requisite information and documents necessary for investigation.
The Authority examined the following issues :-
a. Whether the Applicant No. 1 was entitled to the benefit of ITC?
b. Whether there was any violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017?
According to the DGAP’s report the project under investigation was started in the year 2012 and most of the work had been completed in 2014, however, the project was completed in March, 2018 and the GC was obtained on 11.04.2018.
The DGAP claimed that on scrutiny of the Service Tax and GST Returns submitted by the Respondent, it was observed that the Respondent had not availed any CENVAT credit of the input services and had also not availed any ITC in the post-GST period in respect of the above project. The State GST Authorities had also cancelled the GST registration of the Respondent as he had not filed the GSTR-3B Returns from September 2018 onwards and GSTR-1 Returns from January 2019 onwards. The Authority thus concluded that this case does not fall under the ambit of Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as the Respondent had not availed benefit of additional ITC in the post-GST regime. Hence, the allegation of not passing on the benefit of ITC is not established against the Respondent_ Therefore, the Respondent is not liable to pass on the benefit of ITC to the Applicant No. 1 and the other recipients. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 have not been contravened in the present case.
Therefore, the application filed by the Applicant No. 1 requesting action against the Respondent for alleged violation of the provisions of the Section 171 of the CGST Act was not maintainable and hence the same was dismissed.
Vox Analytica GST
Would you like to subscribe to GST Updates by Riverus? Stay clued in on the latest notifications, circulars, other legislation information and case laws as soon as they are available.