Director General of Anti-Profiteering

This Commission finds that the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted in the case of other projects of the Respondent and therefore the present proceedings are hereby dropped

Since GST is an indirect tax, the liability to pay the same falls upon the employer to the contract and accordingly there will be a direction to respondents to pay the GST component against the bills raised by the petitioner.

The contention of the the petitioner is that the service of supply of manpower to an entity in Rajasthan by the petitioner is an inter-state transaction as the said supply has been undertaken by the petitioner from a place of business outside Rajasthan to a place in the State of Rajasthan. On the said inter-state transaction, he has duly deposited 18% of IGST and as such the demand of 18% CGST+RGST is unjustified and amounts to double taxation. As the grant of interim protection is concerned, the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay tax on the services rendered by it twice, therefore, in the interest of justice, it is provided that the petitioner may apply for the refund of the IGST in the prescribed form as per the Act and the Rules

The present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assails the actions of the respondents authorities with regard to the Detention of the goods and vehicle of the petitioner as well as subsequent orders passed under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “CGST Act”).

The provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted in this case and there is no requirement of any commensurate reduction in the prices of the units in the above project by the Respondent. Applicant No. 1 could have availed the above benefit only if the above project was under execution/implementation before the date of GST implementation viz., 01.07.2017. Hence, the allegations made by the Applicant No. 1 are incorrect and therefore, the same cannot be accepted. Therefore, the proceedings in the present case are hereby dropped

No such provision in GS

GSTAT Delhi held that where developer passed ITC benefit to eligible buyers, no anti-profiteering liability survives. Though DGAP initially quantified profiteering, respondent had already passed excess benefit and later paid balance to one buyer. Tribunal accepted DGAP report and closed proceedings under Section 171

A homebuyer filed a complaint alleging that M/s Realgem Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., developer of “Rustomjee Crown Phase-I”, did not pass on the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit (ITC) after implementation of GST, in violation of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 (anti-profiteering provisions).

Allahabad High Court allowed habeas corpus petition and set aside remand order holding that mandatory requirement of furnishing written grounds of arrest was not complied with. Though “reasons to believe” need not be supplied to accused under GST law, written grounds of arrest must accompany arrest memo as per Supreme Court and CBIC instructions. Court also applied Satender Kumar Antil principles on arrest for offences punishable up to five years and ordered petitioner’s release.

The GSTAT Delhi upheld DGAP’s findings that M/s Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. profiteered Rs.98,72,474 (including GST) in respect of projects “Pebbles,” “Hynish Tower-10,” and “Greens” by not fully passing additional ITC benefits post-GST. Accepting the Respondent’s email admitting no further submissions, the Tribunal directed refund of the profiteered amount to identifiable homebuyers along with interest under Rule 133(3)(b). It further held that penalty under Section 171(3A) is attracted, subject to statutory proviso regarding deposit within 30 days.

A complaint was filed by Shri Gaurav Pant alleging profiteering n respect of construction services provided in the project “Paarth Aadyant Lucknow Phase-1”, Lucknow. It was alleged that the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) was not passed on to the homebuyers by way of commensurate reduction in price.