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.
The Tribunal held that where the input tax credit ratio reduced in the post-GST period, no additional benefit accrued to the developer. Consequently, no profiteering under Section 171 was established.
The Tribunal held that increasing base prices after a GST rate reduction defeated the statutory mandate of Section 171. Profiteering was confirmed as the benefit of tax reduction was not passed on to consumers.
The case examined whether a cinema operator passed on the GST reduction on ticket prices. The Tribunal held that maintaining the same cum-tax prices by increasing base prices amounted to profiteering under Section 171.
The Tribunal held that no profiteering arose where the ITC-to-cost ratio declined after GST. The key takeaway is that absence of GST-led savings defeats section 171 allegations.
GSTAT upheld that the benefit of GST reduction from 28% to 18% was not passed on to consumers and directed recovery of ₹19.32 lakh as profiteering, to be deposited in Consumer Welfare Funds.
The tribunal accepted an area-based methodology for computing profiteering in a housing project, rejecting turnover-linked calculations. The ruling confirms that uniform per-square-foot benefit must be passed on to all eligible buyers.
A slight increase in post-GST ITC was held to amount to profiteering when not passed on. The tribunal directed refund of the quantified benefit with interest to eligible buyers.
The Tribunal held that although profiteering was initially computed, the developer had already passed on a higher amount to the buyer. With full discharge of Section 171 obligations, proceedings were closed.
