No Anti-Profiteering Where Flat Was Booked Post-GST with ITC Factored In:

The authority held that no benefit was required to be passed on under Section 171 where the flat was booked post-GST and prices were fixed after factoring in available ITC.
Flat Booked Post-GST, Prices Already Factored ITC: GSTAT

No Anti-Profiteering Where Flat Was Booked Post-GST with ITC Factored In
A complaint was filed alleging profiteering by Shrivision Towers Pvt. Ltd. aka Shriram Greenfield project, claiming that the benefit of input tax credit (ITC) arising from the introduction of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017 was not passed on by way of a commensurate reduction in the price of a flat booked by the complainant in Phase-I of the project. The matter was examined by the DGAP after referred by the Standing Committee. Competition Commission of India directed a reinvestigation due to the judgment in Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd.
The DGAP compared pre-GST and post-GST purchase values and ITC availed for Phase-I and concluded that the ITC-to-cost ratio had actually reduced post-GST, resulting in no cost savings to the respondent. The DGAP held that there was no contravention of Section 171 of the CGST Act. The complainant filed objections, which were opposed by the respondent.
Issue Before Tribunal: Whether the respondent builder had profiteered by not passing on the benefit of ITC to the homebuyer under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
GST Tribunal Held: The GST Appellate Tribunal accepted the DGAP’s report and rejected the complaint. It held that the investigation correctly confined itself to Phase-I of the project and followed the methodology laid down by the High Court in Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal noted that the ITC ratio decreased from 15.25% in the pre-GST period to 14.57% in the post-GST period, showing that no additional benefit accrued to the respondent on account of GST. Since the flat was booked in the post-GST period and prices were fixed after factoring in available ITC, no benefit was required to be passed on to the buyer. Thus, no violation of Section 171 was established.
To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below
About Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2191My Recent Articles
- ITAT Quashes Section 153C Assessments Without Incriminating Material For Completed YearsPremium
- High Court Upholds DGGI Arrest Despite Prior State GST InvestigationPremium
- ITAT Holds Section 263 Assessment Cannot Survive After Revision Order Is QuashedPremium
- ITAT Allows Section 80P Deduction on Interest From Co-operative BanksPremium
- ITAT Deletes Demonetisation Addition on Marriage Gift and Household Cash ExplanationPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…









