Delhi High Court
For revenue
Case-law directory
Every ruling, in plain sight.
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
20 rulings found
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
GSTAT New Delhi
Where respondent credited Electronic Gift Voucher amounts equivalent to GST rate cut differential directly to customer wallets without expiry or category restriction in respect of MI LED Television, such unconditional, traceable EGVs constituted valid and effective mode of passing on benefit under Section 171, as anti-profiteering law does not mandate any specific mechanism for benefit transmission, making DGAP objections unsustainable GST: Where complaint alleged non-passing of GST rate cut on LED TVs and respondent credited equivalent benefit to identified customers' e-wallets based on rate reduction, supported by order and invoice traceability, mere system description like ‘Offers and cashback’ did not negate that credits matched required benefit, thus substance over form was applied and anti-profiteering compliance was found adequate GST: Where customers received EGVs representing monetary value equal to profiteered amounts on purchase of LED televisions, which were not conditional, time-bound or restricted in use, and substantial wallet credits were actually utilised while remaining credits remained freely available, benefit of GST rate cut was genuinely and unconditionally passed to recipients, rendering DGAP contention of non-passing meritless GST: Where respondent, found to have profiteered on sale of specific television models, furnished credit notes for cancellations and distributed EGVs covering most affected customers, unresolved residue of Rs.…
GSTAT New Delhi
Additional ITC benefit under GST was required to be passed on by commensurate price reduction; as LIG/MIG flat prices were statutorily capped to direct costs, profiteering was to be confined to HIGflats, excluding post-OC/unsold units, without cross-buyer set-off GST: In anti-profiteering proceedings, amounts not passed on as commensurate price reduction under Section 171 were liable to be refunded with compensatory interest under Rule 133(3)(b); accordingly, respondent was directed to pay interest at 18% p.a. from respective dates of collection till actual refund, there being no special reason to deviate. GST: As part of anti-profiteering period extended beyond 1-1-2020, penalty under applicable provision was attracted; accordingly, penalty equal to 10% of profiteered amount was leviable, but stood waived if entire profiteered amount was passed on within 30 days from date of order, as prescribed by statutory proviso
GSTAT New Delhi
Where homebuyer alleged that developer failed to pass on additional ITC benefit post-GST in construction project and developer evidenced major input cost escalation, DGAP methodology accounting for post-GST input cost escalation was held legally sound and price rise in RMC, sand and bricks had offset additional ITC, thus DGAP report was to be accepted and respondent did not contravene anti- profiteering provisions
GSTAT New Delhi
Where in a construction project DGAP identified unpaid benefit of Rs. 14,94,622 for 25 eligible buyers, acceptance of revised DGAP findings confirmed section 171 contravention thus respondent was to pass on remaining benefits to eligible buyers along with interest; penalty was also to be imposed for contravention of section 171
GSTAT New Delhi
Where GST rate on admission to cinematography films for tickets up to Rs. 100 was reduced from 18 per cent to 12 per cent and respondent increased base prices of Rs. 100, Rs. 60 and Rs. 30 tickets to maintain same cum-tax prices, benefit of rate reduction was held not to have been passed on and respondent was directed to deposit profiteered amount with interest in Consumer Welfare Funds
GSTAT New Delhi
Where GST rate on admission to cinematography films for tickets up to Rs. 100 was reduced from 18 per cent to 12 percent and respondent increased base prices of Balcony, Dress Circle and First Class tickets while retaining same cum-tax prices, benefit of rate reduction was held not to have been passed on and respondent was directed to deposit profiteered amount with interest in Consumer Welfare Funds
GSTAT New Delhi
Where homebuyer alleged profiteering on construction services for project with 36 units but only 5 flats were examinable due to free allotments and 5 percent scheme units, and DGAP found ITC ratio declined post-GST with no additional ITC benefit accruing, no price reduction obligation arose, reliance on CA-certified project-wise data was justified, and proceedings were to be closed GST: Where complaint alleged non-passing of transitional VAT credit benefit in construction services, but applicant's agreement was post-GST with VAT levied only on a nominal pre-GST advance, and ITC-to-purchase ratio fell after GST, no additional ITC benefit accrued and no profiteering attributable to respondent was established; DGAP's findings and circular-based benefit-passing confirmed
GSTAT New Delhi
In an ongoing real estate project, buyers who booked units after 30.06.2018 (one year after GST implementation) are also entitled to benefit of additional post- GST ITC, and they cannot be excluded from anti-profiteering computation merely because prices were renegotiated, absent proof of commensurate reduction. GST: Where profiteered amount and recipients are identifiable from project records and DGAP's buyer-wise computation, amount must be refunded to respective homebuyers and cannot be deposited in Consumer Welfare Fund merely because recovery or contact may be difficult GST: Excess ITC benefit passed on to some homebuyers cannot be set off against shortfall payable to others, as anti-profiteering provisions require commensurate benefit to be passed to each identifiable recipient individually. GST: Profiteering in real estate must be computed inclusive of GST as homebuyer is entitled to restitution of entire excess amount paid including GST charged on inflated base price so as to restore position that would have existed had ITC benefit been duly passed on. GST: Where profiteering is determined on a project-completion basis, interest under Rule 133(3)(b) is payable at 18% per annum from date of payment of last instalment by each eligible homebuyer until date of actual refund
GSTAT New Delhi
Where anti-profiteering proceedings against real estate developer for Digangana Housing Complex were confined to period up to final occupancy certificate, DGAP found no additional ITC benefit post-GST regime as credit ratios pre- and post-GST were nearly identical, no obligation arose to pass on any benefit to homebuyers and anti-profiteering provisions were not contravened so proceedings were disposed of
GSTAT New Delhi
Where developer collected 12% GST from homebuyer for a residential flat without commensurate price reduction for additional ITC benefit and availed eligible post-GST ITC, but provided no proof of passing on such benefit, accurate DGAP calculation established profiteering of Rs. 95,13,829, warranting affirmation of liability under section 171
GSTAT New Delhi
Where builder failed to pass on additional ITC benefit by actual price reduction for Anamika Apartment flats despite providing some extra construction work free of cost, such act did not meet section 171 mandate and builder was held liable to pass on Rs 99,435 with GST and interest to affected homebuyers, as per DGAP's accepted computation and methodology GST: Where respondent failed to pass on benefit of GST reduction to two homebuyers during specified period, respondent was mandatorily liable to return differential amount along with interest at 18 percent per annum from date of collection till actual payment, as provisions under Rule 133(3)(b) and Section 171 are compulsory once profiteering is established GST: Where contravention of anti-profiteering measure continued from 1 July 2017 to 31 October 2020 and penalty provision under Section 171(3A) became effective from 1 January 2020, liability for penalty arose only for non-passing of benefit during post-insertion period, with statutory relief available if profiteered amount was deposited within thirty days from order date
GSTAT New Delhi
Where homebuyer filed complaint alleging non-passing of additional ITC after GST rollout for flat in residential project and DGAP found respondent availed additional ITC which was not disputed, statutory obligation required such benefit to be passed on to eligible homebuyers by commensurate reduction in prices, thus, respondent was required to pass on additional ITC benefit post-GST implementation along with interest
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 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
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