Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
89 rulings found
GSTAT New Delhi
Where builder passed on entire and even excess computed additional ITC benefit to eligible pre-GST homebuyers in a residential project, as confirmed by DGAP in re-computation including goods in pre-GST purchases and with no contrary evidence, anti-profiteering requirements stood fully complied with and no contravention was made out
GSTAT Maharashtra
Where supplier discontinued use of brand name on packaging and printed only its name and address to comply with Food Safety and Standards Regulations, such statutory disclosure did not constitute use of a brand name and exemption under Notification No. 02/2017-CT(R) could not be denied; no infirmity could be found with order of appellate authority setting aside demand against assessee/supplier
GSTAT New Delhi
Mere filing of Occupancy Certificate application does not constitute project completion; completion occurs only on grant of Occupancy Certificate, and ITC availed till such grant must be considered for determining post-GST anti-profiteering liability. GST: Since sales made post-Occupancy Certificate are not taxable supplies and related ITC is inadmissible, anti-profiteering applies only up to date of Occupancy Certificate; accordingly, investigation should cover period upto Occupancy Certificate and revised computation based on CA-certified data was upheld. GST: In real estate projects, determination of anti-profiteering iamount by comparing pre-GST ITC-to-purchase ratio and post-GST ITC-to-purchase ratio up to Occupancy Certificate date and allocating per sq. ft. benefit to eligible buyers, reasonably quantifies additional ITC required to be passed on. GST: Where homebuyers are identifiable from project records, Rule 133(3)(b) requires refund of profiteered amount with 18% interest to each recipient; residuary deposit under Rule 133(3)(c) cannot be invoked merely because no complaint was made or buyers are temporarily unavailable. GST: Penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act is prospective from 01.01.2020 and, in the absence of express retrospective operation, cannot be imposed for anti- profiteering pertaining to periods prior thereto
GSTAT Cuttack
Where assessee deposited pre-deposit at first appeal stage exceeding percentage of tax remaining in dispute after first appellate order, no further pre- deposit was required for admission of Tribunal appeal since earlier payment equalled or surpassed statutory requirement based on surviving disputed tax, rendering any fresh deposit unjustified
GSTAT Cuttack
Where appellant disputed any further statutory pre-deposit for Tribunal appeal after already depositing ten per cent of original disputed tax at first appeal, and first appellate order had reduced tax demand, no further pre-deposit was required for Tribunal stage since requirements under section 112 stood satisfied by earlier deposit. GST: Where Appellate Authority reduced demand and appellant filed Tribunal appeal paying court fee of Rs. 3,000 though minimum court fee prescribed under Rule 110(5) was Rs. 5,000 at Rs. 1,000 per one lakh, short payment existed and appellant was required to pay the balance
GSTAT
For real estate anti-profiteering, project-wise ITC benefit computed through pre- GST and post-GST credit-to-cost ratios with area-wise allocation is valid; benefit must accrue uniformly to all similarly placed buyers and cannot be restricted to receipts from individual purchasers. GST: Under Section 171, additional post-GST ITC must be passed to each homebuyer by commensurate price reduction and excess benefit to some buyers cannot offset shortfall to others; recipient-wise entitlement governs; DGAP’s project- wise computation of profiteering, inclusive of GST, was justified. GST: Interest at 18% under Rule 133(3)(b) is mandatory on profiteered amount not passed to recipients, running from date of collection till actual refund or pass-on. Liability is compensatory, independent of intent or delay by authorities, and restores time value of money to buyers. GST: Section 171(3A), effective from 01-01-2020, creates substantive penal liability and cannot operate retrospectively; hence, no penalty was leviable for profiteering relating to period prior to its enforcement, though profiteered amount with applicable interest remains recoverable
GSTAT New Delhi
Where developer of real estate project accepted without dispute that ITC benefit on rate reduction was not fully passed on to 149 homebuyers for units booked prior to occupancy certificate, computation of profiteered amount at project level by DGAP for period till certificate date was to be upheld; and developer was to be directed to refund remaining amount including GST to affected homebuyers. GST: Where Rs 11.13 lakh remained to be passed on as anti-profiteering amount to 149 homebuyers in White Orchid project and respondent did not dispute interest liability, respondent was liable to pay interest at 18 percent per annum on profiteered amount from respective dates of excess collection until refund, with refund and interest to be computed and paid buyer-wise as mandated under Rule 133(3)(b). GST: Where DGAP recorded anti-profiteering contravention by respondent relating to homebuyers for period before penalty provision under section 171(3A) became operative, penalty could not be imposed as contravention occurred entirely prior to commencement of penal provision
GSTAT New Delhi
A cinema operator contravened anti-profiteering provisions by retaining GST- inclusive ticket prices after GST rate reduction by increasing base prices instead of passing on benefit to customers; profiteering of about Rs. 8.99 lakh with 18% interest was recoverable and payable equally to Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds; no penalty was leviable asperiod was prior to 1.1.2020
GSTAT New Delhi
Where assessee chemical manufacturer engaged Dow Europe GmbH under procurement agreement for vendor identification and negotiation support, and Dow Europe acted independently without authority to bind assessee, services did not qualify as intermediary but as import of services, so place of supply remained in India, making IGST payable under reverse charge with refund claim rightly rejected. GST: Where assessee paid IGST under reverse charge on import of services, reversed related ITC and sought refund, in absence of export and with place of supply being in India, statutory conditions for refund were not met, and thus assessee had no entitlement to refund for the relevant period, warranting dismissal of appeals challenging rejection of refund claims