DG Anti Profiteering Vs Maata Rani Builders And Developers (GSTAT)
The proceedings arose from complaints filed under Rule 128 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 by two homebuyers alleging that the respondent builder had failed to pass on the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit (ITC) in respect of flats purchased in the “Anamika Apartment” project, as required under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The complaint was referred for investigation by the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), which initially submitted a report in March 2021. Following the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the matter was remitted for reinvestigation, and the DGAP submitted a fresh report dated 08.08.2025.
Also Read: ITC Benefit Must Be Passed Through Price Reduction, Not Free Upgrades: GSTAT
The DGAP investigated the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.10.2020 and found that the respondent, though unable to avail ITC in the pre-GST regime, became eligible for ITC under GST. Based on purchase values and ITC availed, the DGAP computed that the respondent received an additional ITC benefit of 14.94%, resulting in a profiteered amount of ₹4,67,805, which, after adding GST of ₹56,137, aggregated to ₹5,23,942, to be passed on to six eligible homebuyers.
