GSTAT directed the DGAP to recompute the profiteered amount after noting that only the services component of the ₹89 crore pre-GST value was considered. A revised report under Rule 133(2A) must be filed within one month.
The Tribunal directed DGAP to re-examine calculation issues after the Respondent challenged the method of computing profiteering. Questions on service ITC deduction and price comparison require fresh scrutiny.
GSTAT held that claims of increased royalty, rent, and commissions were unsupported by cogent evidence. The supplier failed to rebut the presumption that GST rate reduction must result in commensurate price cuts.
The Tribunal accepted DGAP findings that total profiteering was ₹5.20 crore, though ₹6.63 crore had already been passed on. Only ₹5.80 lakh remains payable to certain buyers.
The GSTAT found that ITC reversal claimed by the developer was not factored into the original computation. The matter was remanded for verification and submission of a revised report.
The anti-profiteering investigation calculated profiteering due to enhanced ITC under GST. As the developer passed on the full benefit, including disputed sums with interest, the Tribunal disposed of the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the contractor failed to fully pass on GST input tax credit benefits under Section 171. It directed refund of ₹9.36 lakh proportionate amount with interest for completed work.
Pursuant to High Court observations and fresh investigation, GSTAT held that the developer did not gain additional ITC benefit warranting price reduction.
DG Anti Profiteering Vs Mantri Castles Private Limited (GSTAT) The proceedings arose from a reference received from the Standing Committee on 30.05.2022 to investigate an application alleging profiteering in respect of construction services supplied for the project “Mantri Serenity” at Bangalore. The allegation concerned non-passing of benefit under Section 171 of the CGST Act. The […]
The appellate authority sent the matter back for re-investigation after the developer claimed that a higher benefit than alleged profiteering was already passed to buyers. The key takeaway is that factual verification of claimed price reductions is essential before confirming profiteering.
