The case addressed increased ITC benefits post-GST without corresponding price reduction. The tribunal ruled this violated Section 171, mandating refund, interest at 18%, and potential penalty.
The dispute concerned failure to reduce prices after GST. The Tribunal held that documentary evidence showed benefit was already transferred to buyers.
GSTAT held that no anti-profiteering violation arises where construction, agreement, and payments occur entirely in the GST regime. Since prices already factored ITC, no benefit was required to be passed on.
The issue involved a calculation error in the final order. The Tribunal clarified the correct per sq. ft. benefit including GST and directed proper computation.
The Tribunal held that no profiteering occurred as the ITC-to-purchase value ratio declined after GST implementation. It ruled that no additional benefit arose, eliminating the obligation to pass on ITC benefits to buyers.
The case examined whether GST rate cuts were passed on to consumers. The authority held that increasing base prices instead of reducing ticket prices violated Section 171, resulting in confirmed profiteering and refund directions.
The case involved non-passing of ITC benefits after GST implementation. The Tribunal held that full ITC gains must be passed on and ordered refund with interest.
The issue included verification of ITC benefit among buyers. The Tribunal relied on DGAP findings and the builder’s acceptance to confirm liability. The ruling underscores the evidentiary role of buyer confirmations.
The Tribunal held that even a marginal increase in ITC must be passed on to buyers. Failure resulted in refund liability with interest under Section 171. The ruling confirms that interest is payable from the date of excess collection. Arguments to defer interest to project completion were rejected.
The case confirms that an increase in ITC must result in price reduction for buyers. The Tribunal found profiteering where such benefit was not passed on, directing refund with interest.
