GST Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi
DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, DGAP v. Townpark Buildcon (P.) Ltd
For revenue
NAPA NO.80 (PB) OF 2025
GST Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi
NAPA NO.80 (PB) OF 2025
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.
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).
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
Section 171 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 126, read with rule 133, of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017; Section 171 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 133 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017; Section 171, read with section 171(3A), of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.
Members
The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.
Free to join. No card required.
Already a member? Sign in
Delhi High Court
Where developer of residential project was charged with profiteering on computation of ITC benefit for homebuyers, DGAP on remand quantified benefit using purchase value against project cost and area-wise distribution, conforming with remand directions and distinct from methodology earlier rejected, no breach of jurisdiction or legal error arose thus, no interference with GSTAT order upholding DGAP report was warranted GST: Where anti-profiteering assessment for petitioner’s project compared actual post-GST ITC including goods and services with NIL pre-GST availed credit as per ST-3 returns, and petitioner admitted non-availment of eligible pre-GST CENVAT on services, calculation based on actual availment rather than entitlement was correct and exclusion of services ITC from computation was unjustified GST: Where petitioner challenged anti-profiteering computation on grounds of increased GST rate and argued rate-led ITC was not a benefit, authorities upheld DGAP's project-level saving and base profiteering methodology as fair, reasonable, and responsive to project features, finding no error in quantification or ground to interfere with GSTAT affirmation, recalculation demands for actual economic benefit under Section 171 was to be rejected GST: Where DGAP's methodology included GST at 12 percent on base profiteered amount for a builder's project by treating GST collected on excess realization as part of profiteering, such quantified inclusion was lawful and aligned with precedent, and no illegality in GST addition was found, hence no basis for writ interference on this aspect GST: Where homebuyers of residential project raised profiteering complaint and GST authoriti…
GSTAT New Delhi
Where cinema retained admission ticket prices after GST rate reduction from 18% to 12% for tickets up to Rs 100 during Jan to Mar 2019 and increased base prices instead of reducing gross prices, this constituted profiteering under Section 171 as amounts belonging to consumers were not passed on, irrespective of cost or market factors, requiring deposit of profiteered sum with interest in consumer welfare fund
GSTAT New Delhi
Where residential project developer failed to pass on additional ITC benefit post-GST, and DGAP recomputation properly excluded reversed unutilised ITC, methodology and revised profiteering amount of Rs. 2.62 lakh plus interest were to be accepted, making developer liable to pass on said amount with 18% interest to eligible homebuyers