NAA: GST Charges Against Construction Service Provider Null

The National Anti-Profiteering Authority has not determined the construction service provider, M/s Aryan Hometec guilty of profiteering.

The petitioner says that he buys a flat in the project named as Aryan fountain square and states without any proof which includes VAT and service tax in MRP for flat during the booking and demanding 12% GST on due amounts that makes the tax doubled while the respondents actually have to pass the benefits of ITC on the completion of the con construction after the GST implementation Gather the basics of GST regime atmosphere in India. We illustrate how meaningful this is for businesses, consumers and Indian Government. Read more has not passed through.

In DGAP’s report, the project started in the year 2012 and plenty of work had completed in 2014. Although the completion of the project was in March 2018 and the OC was taken on 11.04.2018. Before the GST period, the respondent has not paid the tax liabilities also he has defaulted for the payment in GST along with filing the GST refunds Get to know about official GST refund process under GST regime as finalized by the GST Council. We have included terms and conditions of all aspects. Read more.

The concern has seen that respondent has not availed any CENVAT credit of the input services during the period from 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017 and had also not availed any ITC in the post-GST period from 01.07.2017 to 30.04.2019 declares on the scrutiny said by the DGAP it is for the service tax and GST returns submit through the respondent.

GST registration of the Respondent on 31.08.2018 since he has not filled the GSTR 3B Returns Get to know details on GST return 3B form along with the online return filing procedure. Also, we mentioned GSTR-3B due dates, penalty & general queries. Read more from September 2018 onward and GSTR 1 Returns from January 2019 onward thus the authorities have cancelled the GST returns.

This case will not come in the ambit of the Anti-Profiteering plan of Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 because the Respondent has not claimed the advantage of the another ITC for the post of GST administration. Thus the accusation for not transferring the advantage of ITC has not developed upon respondents.

Hence the respondent is not eligible for taking advantage over the ITC for applicant no1. Presently under Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 have not been violated.

Official heads Chairman B.N. Sharma and Technical Members J.C. Chauhan and Amand Shah announce the request filed by the applicant on the respondent for alleged the violation under the section 171 of CGST act can not be sustained and thus is rejected for the application against the construction service provider.