GSTAT accepted the DGAP finding that the ratio of credit availed to purchase value declined after GST implementation. Since no additional ITC benefit accrued, no profiteering was established.
GSTAT held that the retailer failed to pass on the benefit of GST reduction from 28% to 18% through commensurate price cuts. The Tribunal directed deposit of ₹13.61 crore in Consumer Welfare Funds.
GSTAT held that permissions relating to ticket pricing could not override the statutory requirement to pass on GST rate reduction benefits to consumers. The profiteering demand was sustained.
GSTAT closed the proceedings after noting that the complainant had unconditionally withdrawn the complaint and entered into a settlement with the developer. The Tribunal also held that the matter had already been conclusively adjudicated earlier.
GSTAT held that failure to pass on additional Input Tax Credit benefits to eligible homebuyers violated Section 171 of the CGST Act. The Tribunal ordered refund of profiteered amounts with GST, interest and penalty.
GSTAT upheld anti-profiteering findings after the developer accepted the DGAP report concerning ITC benefits in a housing project. The Tribunal ruled that excess benefit given to some buyers cannot offset shortfall payable to others.
The GSTAT held that customer emails denying receipt of ITC benefit could not outweigh books of accounts, ledgers, and credit notes showing price adjustments. The Tribunal recognised adjustment of dues as a valid mode of passing GST benefits.
The GSTAT directed the DGAP to re-examine profiteering calculations after observing a possible miscalculation in the Input Tax Credit figures. The Tribunal sought additional documents and ordered submission of a supplementary report.
The GSTAT set aside the DGAP’s profiteering report after questioning the methodology used to calculate Input Tax Credit benefits in a real estate project. The Tribunal directed a fresh investigation and recalculation of alleged profiteering.
GSTAT noted inconsistencies in the DGAP’s findings regarding whether the Respondent had actually increased base prices after GST rate reduction. The Tribunal held that such contradictions required comprehensive reinvestigation.
