Skip to content

Case Laws
Insights
Topics
Tools
About

Simplifying tax. Empowering you.

Clear, searchable summaries of Indian tax rulings — and a professional community to discuss what each decision means in practice.

Explore

Case laws
Insights
Topics
Courts

Tools

Income tax calculator
SIP calculator
EMI calculator
GST calculator
All calculators

Company

About
Contact

Legal

Privacy policy
Terms of use
Disclaimer

Summaries on TaxKatha are for general information only and do not constitute legal or tax advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on any ruling.

© 2026 TaxKatha. All rights reserved.

Case Laws
Insights
Topics
Tools
About

GST Appellate Tribunal

GST Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi

Rulings of the GST Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, newest first.

Search case laws

/

Outcome

In favour of assessee457 In favour of revenue176 Partly allowed0 Matter remanded126

Topic

Demands & adjudication150 Appeals to Appellate Authority69 Input tax credit68 Registration58 Penalty & confiscation33 Refund33 Service of notices & orders30 Appeals to Appellate Tribunal22 Anti-profiteering20 Arrest & bail16 Interest & waiver14 Levy & collection14 Recovery & attachment14 Supply & valuation14 Assessment13 Detention in transit12 Exemptions12 Government contractors11 Offences & prosecution11 Classification & rate9 Returns9 Officers & jurisdiction7 Search & seizure7 Transitional provisions5 Advance ruling3 Cess3 Writs & constitutional remedies3 Rectification2 Other8

Provision

CGST S.73
CGST S.74
CGST S.107
CGST S.75
CGST S.16
CGST S.169
CGST S.29
CGST S.54
CGST S.9
CGST S.30

More provisions

Decision date

FromTo

19 rulings

Sort by

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
0

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

CGST S.171
CGST Rules R.126
CGST Rules R.133

GSTAT New Delhi2 Sept 2026

For assessee

DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Sane Retails (P.) Ltd

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.…

CGST S.171
CGST Rules R.133

GSTAT New Delhi2 Sept 2026

For revenue

DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General Of Anti-Profiteering v. Bengal Emami Housing Ltd

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

CGST S.171
CGST S.7
CGST Rules R.126
CGST Rules R.133

GSTAT New Delhi2 Sept 2026

For assessee

Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Vertex Homes (P.) Ltd

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

CGST S.171
CGST Rules R.126
CGST Rules R.129

GSTAT New Delhi17 Aug 2026

For revenue

DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Laureate Buildwell (P.) Ltd

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

CGST S.171

GSTAT New Delhi13 Aug 2026

For revenue

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

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

CGST S.171

GSTAT New Delhi13 Aug 2026

For revenue

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

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

CGST S.171

GSTAT New Delhi11 Aug 2026

For assessee

DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, DGAP v. Amal Realtors (P.) Ltd

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

CGST S.171

GSTAT New Delhi3 Aug 2026

For revenue

DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-profiteering, DGAP v. Oxford Realty LLP

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

CGST S.171
CGST Rules R.126
CGST Rules R.133

GSTAT New Delhi31 Jul 2026

For assessee

DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Antiprofiteering, DGAP v. Bengal Peerless Housing Development Company Ltd

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

CGST S.171

GSTAT New Delhi30 Jul 2026

For revenue

DG Anti-Profiteering, Director General of Anti-profiteering, DGAP v. Anuhar Homes (P.) Ltd

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

CGST S.171

GSTAT New Delhi29 Jul 2026

For revenue

DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, DGAP v. Maata Rani Builders and Developers

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

CGST S.171
CGST Rules R.133

GSTAT New Delhi28 Jul 2026

For revenue

DG Anti-Profiteering, Director General of Anti-profiteering, DGAP v. MM Construction

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

CGST S.171

GSTAT New Delhi23 Jul 2026

For assessee

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

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

CGST S.171

GSTAT New Delhi17 Jul 2026

For revenue

DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-profiteering, DGAP v. Merit Magnum Construction (Formerly M/s Vimal Builders)

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

CGST S.171
CGST S.7
CGST S.17
CGST Rules R.129
+2

GSTAT New Delhi2 Jul 2026

For revenue

DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, DGAP v. Townpark Buildcon (P.) Ltd

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

CGST S.171
CGST Rules R.126
CGST Rules R.133

GSTAT New Delhi11 Jun 2026

For revenue

DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti- Profiteering, DGAP v. Vishwanath Cinema Hall 70MM

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

CGST S.171
CGST Rules R.126
CGST Rules R.133

GSTAT New Delhi4 Jun 2026

For revenue

Dow Chemical International (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax

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

IGST S.13
IGST S.2
CGST S.54
CGST Rules R.89