The Competition Commission of India (CCI) dismissed the anti-profiteering case against L&T Parel Project LLP since the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) decided the profiteering amount on the crescent bay case.
The DGAP reported that the Respondent while executing the ’Crescent Bay’ Project situated in Parel Mumbai had profiteered an amount of Rs. 7,94,569/- from Applicant No. 1 Sh. Bharat Kashyap, Rs. 29,45,27,905/- from other 850 home buyers who had not filed complaints and Rs. 1,23,35,442/- from M/s Omkar Realtors & Developers Pvt. Ltd. who was co-developer of the Project and was to further pass on the profiteered amount to the 30 flat buyers.
The Respondent and M/s Omkar Realtors & Developers Pvt. Ltd. had entered into a 60:40 Joint Revenue Sharing agreement in which the cost was to be borne by the Respondent. Hence, the ITC was claimed by the Respondent who was to pass the benefit of ITC to home buyers who had purchased flats from him and M/s Omkar Reactors & Developers Pvt. Ltd. was to pet his share of ITC from the Respondent and pass it on to the buyers to whom he had sold his share of flats
To verify Respondent’s claim that he had not undertaken any project other than “Crescent Bay”, the details of Respondent’s projects registered with Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) were checked online and it was observed that the Respondent had taken tower-wise RERA registration of 6 towers under Crescent Bay project.
The DGAP has concluded that the Respondent has not undertaken any other project except project “Crescent Bay” which has already been investigated by DGAP and profiteering has been determined vide NAA Order No. 51/2022 dated 29.07.2022.
The Commission comprising Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi, Ravneet Kaur, Jyoti Jindga Bhanot, and Sangeeta Verma has considered the Report of the DGAP and found that no other project has been executed by the Respondent except the project “Crescent Bay”, profiteering in respect of which has already been determined by the NAA.
The commission held that the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted in the case of the other projects of the Respondent and therefore the proceedings are accordingly dropped against him.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
