Case Law Details
DG Anti Profiteering Vs SJP Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (GSTAT)
The present proceedings arose from a letter dated 18.02.2026 sent by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) to the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), forwarding the Minutes of the 65th Meeting of the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering held on 19.11.2025. The Standing Committee had recommended a fresh investigation against a real estate developer in relation to its project “Migsun Wynn” based on a complaint filed by a homebuyer.
The DGAP sought directions from the Tribunal on whether a fresh investigation was required. Upon examining the records, the DGAP noted that two earlier complaints concerning the same project had already been investigated. In its investigation report dated 28.01.2021, the DGAP had concluded that the developer had benefited from additional Input Tax Credit after the implementation of GST and had profiteered an amount of Rs. 6.87 crore, inclusive of GST, during the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2019.
The erstwhile National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA), after considering the DGAP’s findings and the submissions of the developer, passed a final order dated 26.07.2022 holding that the developer had violated Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The developer challenged the order before the Delhi High Court through a writ petition, but the petition was dismissed, resulting in the matter attaining finality.
During the hearing dated 02.04.2026, the Tribunal issued notices to both the developer and the complainant on the issue of maintainability of the fresh proceedings. Subsequently, when the matter was heard on 30.04.2026, neither the complainant nor the developer appeared physically. However, the DGAP placed on record an email dated 25.04.2026 from the complainant requesting unconditional withdrawal of the complaint on the ground that he had received possession of his flat.
The developer also filed a written reply stating that all disputes between the parties had already been settled through a Settlement Deed dated 03.01.2025. According to the developer, the settlement covered all claims and disputes, including claims relating to GST benefits and anti-profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The developer further submitted that the complainant had voluntarily withdrawn his complaint through his counsel and that all financial transactions, including any anti-profiteering amount, had already been settled.
The DGAP also informed the Tribunal that the issue had already attained finality in the earlier round of litigation and sought guidance regarding the maintainability of a fresh investigation. During the final hearing, the Head of Finance and Accounts of the developer reiterated that a full and final settlement had been reached with the complainant.
While deciding the matter, the Tribunal observed that the DGAP had already conducted a detailed investigation into profiteering allegations concerning the same project and same period. The Tribunal noted that the earlier quantified profiteered amount of Rs. 6.87 crore also included the amount attributable to the present complainant, quantified at Rs. 36,488.
The Tribunal further recorded that the NAA’s order dated 26.07.2022 had already been upheld by the Delhi High Court, thereby giving finality to the issue of profiteering for the relevant project and period. Referring to the principles of res judicata, the Tribunal held that once a matter had been finally adjudicated by a competent authority and affirmed by a superior court, the same issue could not be reopened through a fresh complaint involving the same respondent, project, and period. The Tribunal stated that allowing such proceedings would result in multiple parallel proceedings and legal uncertainty.
The Tribunal also took note of the complainant’s unconditional withdrawal request and the Settlement Deed executed between the parties.
Accordingly, the Tribunal held that no fresh investigation was required because the issue had already been investigated, adjudicated upon by the NAA, and affirmed by the Delhi High Court. Since the complaint had also been withdrawn by the complainant, the Tribunal declared the proceedings not maintainable and directed the DGAP not to take any further action on the complaint.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GSTAT
1. The present proceedings arise from a letter dated 18.02.2026 addressed to this Tribunal by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DGAP’), forwarding the Minutes of the 65th Meeting of the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering held on 19.11.2025. The Standing Committee had recommended a fresh investigation against M/s. SJP Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Respondent’ ), based on a complaint filed by Shri Navnit Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’ ), a homebuyer in the Respondent’s project “Migsun Wynn”.
2. The DGAP, vide the said letter dated 18.02.2026, sought appropriate directions from this Tribunal as to whether a fresh investigation was required to be initiated based on the said complaint.
3. Upon scrutiny of the records, it was noticed by the DGAP that two earlier complaints against the Respondent for the same project “Migsun Wynn” had already been investigated by the DGAP. A detailed investigation report dated 28.01.2021 was submitted to the erstwhile National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA), wherein the DGAP held that the Respondent had benefited from an additional Input Tax Credit post-GST and had profiteered an amount of Rs. 6,87,58,685/- (Rupees Six Crore Eighty-Seven Lakh Fifty-Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty-Five only), inclusive of GST, for the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2019.
4. The NAA, after considering the DGAP report and the Respondent’s submissions, passed a final order dated 26.07.2022, holding that the Respondent had contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CGST Act, 2017’ ). The Respondent preferred a writ petition before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court challenging the said order, which was dismissed, thereby attaining finality.
5. In view of the above, this Tribunal, during the course of the hearing dated 02.04.2026, issued a notice to the Respondent as well as the Complainant on the question of maintainability of the present proceedings.
6. Thereafter, the matter was again taken up for hearing on 30.04.2026. On the said date, none appeared for the Respondent, nor did the Complainant appeared. However, the Learned Additional Assistant Director for the DGAP placed on record an email dated 25.04.2026 from the Complainant, Shri Navnit Kumar, requesting unconditional withdrawal of his complaint on the ground that he had since received possession of his flat.
7. Further, the Respondent had filed a written reply dated 30.04.2026, and submitted the following:
(i) That all disputes raised by the Complainant in his application before this Tribunal had already been settled vide a Settlement Deed dated 03.01.2025 executed between the Respondent and the Complainant. The Settlement Deed stated that it constituted a full and final settlement between the parties regarding all disputes and claims of whatsoever nature, including the benefits of GST and the benefit of GST Input Tax Credit under anti-profiteering incorporated under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, as well as all claims, rights, interests, issues, and grievances raised by the Complainant before the Hon’ble NCDRC regarding his unit/flat.
ii. That the Complainant had voluntarily withdrawn his complaint vide email dated 24.04.2026 through his counsel.
iii. That the Complainant had already obtained possession of his allotted flat, and all financial transactions, including any anti-profiteering amount, had been settled with him. Consequently, the complaint had become infructuous.
8. Further, the DGAP, vide its letter dated 18.02.2026 and subsequent oral submissions during the course of the hearing, submitted that the matter had already attained finality in the earlier round of litigation and sought guidance from this Tribunal on the maintainability of a fresh investigation.
9. Thereafter, the matter was finally heard today, Shri Pawan Kumar, Head of Finance and Accounts of the Respondent, appeared in virtual mode and submitted that a full and final settlement had been made with the Complainant, Shri Navnit Kumar.
FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL
10. Upon careful examination of the facts and records of the matter, this Tribunal proceeds to determine the core issue framed as to whether a fresh investigation is required to be initiated on the complaint of Shri Navnit Kumar, when the subject matter of profiteering against the Respondent for the same project and same period has already been finally adjudicated upon.
11. It is an undisputed fact that the DGAP had already conducted a detailed investigation against the Respondent for the project “Migsun Wynn” based on complaints filed by other homebuyers. The DGAP, vide its report dated 28.01.2021, quantified the profiteered amount at Rs. 6,87,58,685/- (Rupees Six Crore Eighty-Seven Lakh Fifty-Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty-Five only), inclusive of GST. Further, this amount is inclusive of the profiteered amount attributable to the present Complainant, Shri Navnit Kumar, quantified at Rs. 36,488/-.
12. The erstwhile NAA, after due consideration, confirmed the DGAP’s findings and passed a final order dated 26.07.2022 holding the Respondent is liable for profiteering. The Respondent challenged the said order before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by way of a writ petition. The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to dismiss the said writ petition, thereby upholding the findings of the NAA. Consequently, the issue of profiteering by the Respondent for the said project for the period covered by the investigation from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2019 has attained finality both in terms of facts and law.
13. In this regard, the principles of res judicata are well established. Once a matter has been fully and finally adjudicated upon by a competent authority and affirmed by a superior court, the same cannot be reopened based on a fresh complaint raising the same cause of action against the same Respondent for the same project and same period. To permit such a course would be contrary to the settled canons of jurisprudence and would lead to multiple parallel proceedings on the same subject matter, resulting in legal uncertainty and abuse of process.
14. Moreover, the Respondent has placed on record an email dated 24.04.2026 from the Complainant, Shri Navnit Kumar, requesting unconditional withdrawal of his complaint on the ground that he has received possession of his flat. A Settlement Deed dated 03.01.2025 has also been annexed, purporting to settle all disputes between the parties.
ORDER
15. In view of the above, it is held that the matter of profiteering against the Respondent, M/s. SJP Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., for the project “Migsun Wynn” for the period up to 31.12.2019, has already been investigated, adjudicated by the NAA vide final order dated 26.07.2022, and affirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The said matter has accordingly attained finality.
16. Consequently, no fresh investigation is required to be taken up based on the complaint of Shri Navnit Kumar, which has since been unconditionally withdrawn by the Complainant himself.
17. The present proceedings, being not maintainable, are hereby dropped.
18. The DGAP shall take no further action on the said complaint.
19. A copy of this Order be forwarded to the Respondent, the Complainant (Shri Navnit Kumar), the DGAP, and the jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner(s) for information.
20. The matter is disposed of accordingly.
21. Order pronounced in the open court.
Author Bio
