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.
Proceedings were closed after it was confirmed that GST ITC benefits had already been passed on to flat buyers. The decision emphasizes that resolved ITC benefit disputes do not warrant continued proceedings.
An anti-profiteering complaint was dismissed after investigation showed the project started after GST implementation. The decision highlights that Section 171 does not apply without a pre-GST to post-GST comparison.
The GST Appellate Tribunal accepted the DGAP report after finding no profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act. With no appearance from the complainant, the proceedings were concluded and the case was disposed of.
The GST Appellate Tribunal held that the profiteering amount must exclude benefits already passed on to home buyers. The respondent was directed to refund the net amount with interest to eligible buyers within three months.
The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report after the complainant failed to appear despite confirmed receipt of the hearing notice. The ruling shows that proceedings may be concluded when a complainant does not participate.
The tribunal accepted the investigation report finding no savings in pre- and post-GST credit ratios. With complainants settling disputes and withdrawing complaints, the proceedings were closed.
The GST Appellate Tribunal remanded the case to the DGAP after the respondent admitted that incorrect figures were earlier submitted. The Tribunal directed reinvestigation under Rule 133(4) without examining the merits.
The Tribunal accepted the anti-profiteering report after the respondent agreed to pay ₹67.02 crore to eligible homebuyers. The ruling directs payment within three months along with applicable interest, closing the dispute through an undertaking.
The Tribunal held that allegations of profiteering were not substantiated after detailed verification of records and returns. It concluded that GST liabilities were duly discharged and the complaint was liable to be dropped.
