The tribunal remanded the matter after the respondent admitted incorrect figures were submitted earlier, directing reinvestigation so that profiteering is recalculated on correct data.
The tribunal held that failure to reduce ticket prices after a GST rate cut amounted to profiteering and upheld recovery of the excess amount. The ruling clarifies that tax benefits must be passed on through commensurate price reduction.
The tribunal accepted the DGAP report after the respondent agreed without objection to its findings. The ruling concludes the case with a direction to pass the remaining ITC benefit to eligible homebuyers.
GSTAT upheld a profiteered amount of ₹4,57,683 but ruled that interest and penalty do not apply as the relevant CGST Rule amendments are prospective.
The tribunal closed the anti-profiteering case as the supplier could not be located, preventing the DGAP from verifying whether GST benefits were passed on. The ruling emphasizes the need for traceable business records.
GSTAT upheld DGAP’s findings that residual ITC benefit of ₹3.55 lakh was passed on by contractor to IOCL, closing anti-profiteering proceedings under Section 171.
GSTAT holds no profiteering under Section 171 CGST Act in IREO’s Skyon, Ireo City Central, and Managed Service Apartment projects as post-GST ITC benefit did not increase.
GSTAT ruled that no additional input tax credit benefit accrued to developer after GST implementation, leading to closure of anti-profiteering proceedings under Section 171 of CGST Act.
GSTAT accepted DGAP’s repeated findings that the company did not contravene Section 171 of the CGST Act, confirming that GST rate reductions were passed on to recipients as required.
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) accepted the DGAP’s final report, concluding that IREO Victory Valley Pvt. Ltd. did not contravene anti-profiteering provisions under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, as the project received no additional Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit post-GST.
