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.
The Tribunal noted that the Applicant repeatedly failed to appear or file objections despite multiple opportunities being granted. In absence of any rebuttal, GSTAT proceeded on the basis of the DGAP report and available records.
GSTAT held that the builder failed to uniformly pass on additional GST input tax credit benefits to homebuyers in a housing project. The Tribunal directed refund of the remaining profiteered amount with 18% interest.
The Tribunal remanded the case after finding that ITC reversals on unsold inventory were not adequately examined. It directed fresh investigation to verify the impact on profiteering calculations and ensure proper assessment.
The case examines whether additional ITC benefit post-GST was passed to buyers. The Tribunal held that failure to reduce prices amounted to profiteering, requiring refund with interest.
The Tribunal held that maintaining ticket prices by increasing base price after GST reduction violated Section 171. It directed deposit of profiteered amount while denying penalty due to non-retrospective applicability.
