GST Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi23 July 2026

DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-profiteering, DGAP v. PRL Developers

For assessee

The ruling in brief

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

Provisions considered

CGST S.171

Section 171 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Delhi 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.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

Delhi High Court28 Sept 2026

For revenue

Lichfl Care Homes Ltd. v. Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

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…

CGST S.171

GSTAT New Delhi19 Sept 2026

For revenue

DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Devi 70MM

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

CGST S.171

GSTAT New Delhi18 Sept 2026

v. Maruti Developers

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

Related rulings

Delhi High Court28 Sept 2026

For revenue

Lichfl Care Homes Ltd. v. Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

CGST S.171

GSTAT New Delhi19 Sept 2026

For revenue

DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Devi 70MM

CGST S.171

GSTAT New Delhi18 Sept 2026

DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-profiteering, DGAP v. PRL Developers

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-profiteering, DGAP v. PRL Developers

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Read the full analysis

Lichfl Care Homes Ltd. v. Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Devi 70MM

v. Maruti Developers