Issues: (i) Whether units booked after 30.06.2018 could be excluded from the anti-profiteering investigation; (ii) Whether the net profiteered amount was refundable to identified homebuyers or depositable in the Consumer Welfare Fund; (iii) Whether excess benefit passed to some buyers could be set off against liability owed to other buyers; (iv) Whether GST on the inflated base price formed part of the profiteered amount; (v) Whether interest was payable and the date from which it was to be computed; (vi) Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) was applicable.

Issue (i): Whether units booked after 30.06.2018 could be excluded from the anti-profiteering investigation.

Analysis: The ITC benefit is project-specific where construction commenced before GST and continued after its implementation. A post-GST purchaser is entitled to the ITC benefit attributable to post-GST inputs used in construction. Fresh price negotiation or maintenance of average prices, without documented evidence of a commensurate ITC reduction, does not establish that the benefit was passed on.

Conclusion: Post-GST booked units were not excludable; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the net profiteered amount was refundable to identified homebuyers or depositable in the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Analysis: Deposit in the Consumer Welfare Fund is a residuary measure applicable only where recipients genuinely cannot be identified. Buyer-wise project records identified the 128 eligible homebuyers, and absence of a complaint, current contact details, or transfer of project operations did not render them unidentifiable. The supplier's statutory liability to pass on the benefit survives project transfer.

Conclusion: The net profiteered amount must be returned to the identified homebuyers and cannot be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether excess benefit passed to some buyers could be set off against liability owed to other buyers.

Analysis: The obligation to pass on ITC benefit is owed separately to each recipient. Excess payment to one group of customers cannot discharge the obligation owed to different customers. The statutory framework does not empower recovery of alleged excess benefit from consumers or adjustment of that excess against liabilities due to other recipients.

Conclusion: Set-off of excess benefit passed to 1039 customers against the liability to the remaining 128 customers was refused; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether GST on the inflated base price formed part of the profiteered amount.

Analysis: The excess amount paid by a homebuyer includes GST charged on the inflated base price. Even if that tax was remitted to the Government, it was an additional cost borne by the buyer and must be restored to place the buyer in the position that would have prevailed had the ITC benefit been passed on.

Conclusion: Inclusion of GST at 12% in the profiteered amount was upheld; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether interest was payable and the date from which it was to be computed.

Analysis: Rule 133(3)(b) validly provides for interest at 18% per annum on the amount not passed on to recipients. Since the project-wide computation did not permit identification of the exact date of collection of excess amount for each square foot, the date of payment of the last instalment by each buyer was adopted as the appropriate starting point.

Conclusion: Interest at 18% per annum is payable from the respective date of the last instalment paid by each eligible homebuyer until refund; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) was applicable.

Analysis: The entire contravention period ended on 30.10.2019, before Section 171(3A) came into force on 01.01.2020. A penal provision cannot be applied retrospectively to a completed period of contravention.

Conclusion: No penalty under Section 171(3A) is payable; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The developer remained liable to return the net unpassed ITC benefit of Rs. 40,99,917 to the 128 identified homebuyers, with interest, while no penal consequence could be imposed for the pre-enforcement contravention period.

Ratio Decidendi: In a transitional real-estate project, ITC benefit must be passed on project-wise to every eligible recipient, and liability owed to one recipient cannot be neutralised by excess benefit given to another.

Issues: (i) Whether CGST authorities could invoke Section 74(1) to deny transitional credit on the basis that CENVAT credit validly carried in pre-GST returns was inadmissible under the erstwhile regime; (ii) Whether Krishi Kalyan Cess credit transitioned under Section 140(1) was admissible; (iii) Whether VAT credit on stock-in-trade transitioned under Section 140(6) could be denied without contrary material or specific findings.

Issue (i): Whether CGST authorities could invoke Section 74(1) to deny transitional credit on the basis that CENVAT credit validly carried in pre-GST returns was inadmissible under the erstwhile regime.

Analysis: Sections 142(6)(a) and 174(2)(e) preserve proceedings and remedies under the erstwhile enactments. The credit in question stood disclosed as closing balance in the pre-GST service-tax and VAT returns and had never been disputed under those laws. Section 140 permits carry-forward subject to GST eligibility conditions, but does not empower CGST officers to reassess the correctness of credit availed under the repealed regime. Verification of closing credit against particular invoices was also untenable because the closing balance is derived from opening balance, availment and utilisation. Proceedings for alleged wrong availment under the erstwhile regime could only be initiated under the applicable erstwhile law.

Conclusion: The Section 74(1) proceedings, insofar as they reassessed the admissibility of pre-GST credit under the erstwhile laws, were without jurisdiction and were decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Krishi Kalyan Cess credit transitioned under Section 140(1) was admissible.

Analysis: Explanation 3 to Section 140 could not be applied to deny cess credit under Section 140(1) in the absence of operationalisation of the linked amendments to Explanations 1 and 2. The departmental circular confirmed that those amendments would not be notified. The jurisdictional High Court ruling governing the effect of these provisions remained operative, and the pending challenge against it did not justify denial in the absence of a stay.

Conclusion: Transition of Krishi Kalyan Cess credit was valid and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether VAT credit on stock-in-trade transitioned under Section 140(6) could be denied without contrary material or specific findings.

Analysis: The required particulars for stock-in-trade VAT credit had been furnished, while the lower authorities recorded no specific defect or evidence disproving eligibility. The denial merely treated this credit as part of other disputed credits. Objections concerning invoice particulars and documents, not raised when the underlying credit was claimed, could not sustain denial at the transition stage.

Conclusion: The transitioned VAT credit on stock-in-trade was eligible and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transitional credits were legally available, and the demand, interest and penalty founded on their denial could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Transitional-credit provisions do not confer jurisdiction on GST authorities to reassess the admissibility of credit validly carried forward from the erstwhile regime; such disputes must be pursued under the saved provisions of the applicable erstwhile law.

Issues: (i) Whether the developer failed to pass on the additional input tax credit benefit through commensurate reduction in flat prices, and the quantum of profiteering; (ii) Whether Notification No. 19/2024-Central Tax dated 30.09.2024 rendered the pending anti-profiteering proceedings non-maintainable; (iii) Whether pendency of a challenge to the anti-profiteering provisions before the Supreme Court required the proceedings to be kept in abeyance.

Issue (i): Whether the developer failed to pass on the additional input tax credit benefit through commensurate reduction in flat prices, and the quantum of profiteering.

Analysis: Section 171(1) requires a registered person to pass on benefits arising from additional input tax credit by commensurately reducing prices. No eligible CENVAT or VAT credit was available in the pre-GST period, whereas post-GST input tax credit was available at 10.63% of the purchase value. The revised computation, based on the developer's own records, apportioned the resulting saving by saleable area and quantified the benefit attributable to purchasers. The developer neither disputed the underlying data or computation nor established that the benefit had actually been passed on.

Conclusion: The developer contravened Section 171(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and profiteered Rs. 95,13,829 inclusive of GST. This issue is decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Notification No. 19/2024-Central Tax dated 30.09.2024 rendered the pending anti-profiteering proceedings non-maintainable.

Analysis: The notification prospectively prohibits acceptance of fresh requests for examination from 01.04.2025. It neither provides for abatement nor terminates investigations and adjudicatory proceedings already instituted before that date. The complaint and investigation in this matter pre-dated the notified date and could not be treated as a fresh request.

Conclusion: Notification No. 19/2024-Central Tax dated 30.09.2024 does not affect the maintainability of the pending proceedings. This issue is decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether pendency of a challenge to the anti-profiteering provisions before the Supreme Court required the proceedings to be kept in abeyance.

Analysis: Mere pendency of a constitutional or legal challenge before a higher forum does not stay operation of the governing statute or proceedings under it. No stay of Section 171, the investigation, or these proceedings was produced, and the prevailing legal position remained binding.

Conclusion: The proceedings need not be kept in abeyance. This issue is decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The quantified input tax credit benefit must be passed on to eligible homebuyers with prescribed interest; no penalty is attracted because the contravention period preceded the commencement of Section 171(3A).

Ratio Decidendi: A notification barring acceptance of fresh anti-profiteering requests prospectively does not abate pending proceedings, and additional input tax credit retained without commensurate price reduction constitutes profiteering under Section 171(1).

Issues: (i) Whether the additional input tax credit benefit was fully passed on to eligible homebuyers; (ii) whether free additional construction work could substitute commensurate reduction in prices; (iii) whether interest was payable on the unpassed benefit; and (iv) whether penalty was attracted for the contravention.

Issue (i): Whether the additional input tax credit benefit was fully passed on to eligible homebuyers.

Analysis: Section 171(1) requires the benefit of additional input tax credit to reach each recipient through a commensurate reduction in price. The supplementary verification accepted that the benefit had been passed to four homebuyers, but determined a remaining differential amount of Rs. 99,435 for two homebuyers. The revised computation and supporting material disclosed no factual or legal infirmity.

Conclusion: The Respondent failed to pass on Rs. 99,435 of the additional input tax credit benefit to the concerned homebuyers, contrary to Section 171(1), in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether free additional construction work could substitute commensurate reduction in prices.

Analysis: The statutory mode of passing on tax or input tax credit benefit is commensurate reduction in price. An equivalent commercial advantage, including free additional construction work, does not fulfil that prescribed mode even where its asserted value exceeds the differential benefit.

Conclusion: Free additional construction work is not valid compliance with the obligation to pass on input tax credit benefit through commensurate reduction in prices, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether interest was payable on the unpassed benefit.

Analysis: Rule 133(3)(b) mandates interest where an amount has not been passed on by commensurate reduction in prices. The affected recipients were deprived of the monetary benefit from the dates on which the higher amounts were collected.

Conclusion: Interest at 18% per annum is payable on the differential profiteered amount from collection of the higher amount until actual payment, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (iv): Whether penalty was attracted for the contravention.

Analysis: The contravention continued after Section 171(3A) came into force on 01.01.2020. The statutory proviso preserves the consequence that no penalty is leviable if the profiteered amount is deposited within thirty days of the order.

Conclusion: The Respondent is liable to penalty under Section 171(3A), in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The remaining input tax credit benefit must be passed to the affected recipients with statutory interest, and the contravention attracts the applicable anti-profiteering penalty regime.

Ratio Decidendi: The benefit of additional input tax credit under Section 171 must be transmitted to each recipient by commensurate reduction in price and cannot be replaced by in-kind or other commercial benefits.

Issues: Whether a statutory pre-deposit under Section 112(8) is required for admission of an appeal concerning only penalty, where the show-cause notice and impugned appellate order pre-date the proviso effective from 01.10.2025.

Analysis: The pre-amendment provision required payment of admitted amounts and a prescribed percentage of the remaining tax in dispute. The proviso specifically requiring a ten per cent pre-deposit in penalty-only matters became effective on 01.10.2025. The proceedings, including the show-cause notice, original order and appellate order, arose before that date. The amendment contained no express or necessarily implied retrospective operation. Imposing the subsequently introduced condition would curtail the vested substantive right of appeal applicable when the proceedings commenced.

Conclusion: No pre-deposit under Section 112(8) is required for admission of the present penalty-only appeal.

Issues: (i) Whether additional input tax credit arising after implementation of GST was required to be passed on to the homebuyers under Section 171(1). (ii) Whether free structural upgrades and fittings constituted passing on of input tax credit benefit by commensurate reduction in prices. (iii) Whether the respondent remained liable to pay the quantified profiteered amount, including GST, to eligible homebuyers. (iv) Whether interest was payable on the profiteered amount and at what rate. (v) Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) was leviable.

Issue (i): Whether additional input tax credit arising after implementation of GST was required to be passed on to the homebuyers under Section 171(1).

Analysis: The respondent was ineligible for input tax credit in the pre-GST period but became eligible for GST input tax credit on project inputs and input services after 1 July 2017. The entitlement and the DGAP computation of additional credit were not disputed. Section 171(1) requires the resulting benefit to be passed to recipients through commensurate price reduction.

Conclusion: The additional input tax credit benefit was required to be passed on to the eligible homebuyers. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether free structural upgrades and fittings constituted passing on of input tax credit benefit by commensurate reduction in prices.

Analysis: Section 171(1) mandates that the benefit reach recipients by commensurate reduction in prices. The statutory mode cannot be substituted by free material, additional works, fittings, or other collateral benefits, irrespective of their claimed value. This requirement applies equally to real-estate supplies and is not confined to FMCG transactions.

Conclusion: Free structural upgrades and fittings do not constitute passing on of input tax credit benefit by commensurate reduction in prices. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the respondent remained liable to pay the quantified profiteered amount, including GST, to eligible homebuyers.

Analysis: Since the claimed additional works could not discharge the statutory obligation, the undisputed DGAP computation remained payable. As the consideration collected from homebuyers included GST, the benefit not passed on also included the GST collected on the additional realisation.

Conclusion: The respondent is liable to pass on Rs. 8,18,899, comprising Rs. 7,31,160 as profiteered amount and Rs. 87,739 as GST, to the eligible homebuyers. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether interest was payable on the profiteered amount and at what rate.

Analysis: Rule 133(3)(b) requires return of the amount not passed on with interest at 18% from the date of collection of the higher amount until return or recovery.

Conclusion: Interest is payable at 18% per annum from collection of the higher amount until actual payment. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) was leviable.

Analysis: The relevant project construction and the conduct giving rise to profiteering had substantially concluded before Section 171(3A) came into force on 1 January 2020. In these circumstances, imposition of penalty was unwarranted.

Conclusion: No penalty under Section 171(3A) is leviable. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The input tax credit benefit must be transmitted to each eligible recipient through price reduction; non-price benefits cannot replace that statutory requirement. The quantified amount, with GST and statutory interest, remains recoverable from the respondent, without penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Section 171(1) prescribes commensurate reduction in price as the means of passing on input tax credit benefit, a supplier cannot substitute structural works, free fittings, or other non-price benefits for that statutory obligation.

Issues: Whether the supplier contravened the anti-profiteering requirement by failing to pass on the additional input tax credit benefit to eligible pre-GST homebuyers.

Analysis: On revised computation incorporating the pre-GST goods component, the additional ITC benefit was determined at 4.23%, with the required benefit for 31 eligible pre-GST homebuyers quantified at Rs. 87,98,766 inclusive of GST. Documentary credit notes established that Rs. 99,67,875 had been passed on to those homebuyers, exceeding the required amount. Section 171(1) requires passing on the benefit by commensurate price reduction; that requirement is fulfilled where the entire determined benefit has been passed on, including where the amount passed exceeds the calculated entitlement.

Conclusion: No contravention of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was established against the Respondent.

Issues: (i) Whether printing the manufacturer's corporate name and address on unit containers pursuant to statutory labelling requirements constitutes use of a brand name so as to deny exemption; (ii) Whether packages supplied exclusively to institutional consumers are "pre-packaged and labelled" goods liable to tax after the amendment.

Issue (i): Whether printing the manufacturer's corporate name and address on unit containers pursuant to statutory labelling requirements constitutes use of a brand name so as to deny exemption.

Analysis: The specific brand logos had ceased to appear on the packaging during the relevant period. Printing the manufacturer's name, address and statutory particulars was compulsory for traceability, safety and regulatory compliance, and was not intended to establish a commercial connection enhancing the goods' value. The exemption condition concerns the physical goods bearing a brand name; a corporate name or logo appearing on tax invoices cannot render otherwise unbranded goods branded.

Conclusion: Statutorily mandated printing of the corporate name and address did not amount to affixing a brand name; the exemption was available to the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether packages supplied exclusively to institutional consumers are "pre-packaged and labelled" goods liable to tax after the amendment.

Analysis: Packages intended for institutional consumers are excluded from the category of pre-packaged commodities meant for retail sale under the applicable packaged-commodities framework. The Revenue did not establish grounds to displace the position that the impugned supplies were exclusively institutional supplies.

Conclusion: The institutional-consumer packages were not "pre-packaged and labelled" goods for the amended entry; the exemption was available to the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The supplies remained exempt for both periods, and the tax demand with consequential interest and penalty was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A manufacturer's name and address displayed solely under a statutory labelling mandate do not constitute a brand name, and packages supplied to institutional consumers outside retail sale are not pre-packaged and labelled commodities for the exemption entry.

Issues: (i) Whether project completion for anti-profiteering purposes is reckoned from the application for, or actual issuance of, the occupancy certificate; (ii) Whether the investigation period was correctly confined to 01.07.2017 to the date of occupancy certificate; (iii) Whether the revised methodology and quantification of profiteering were legally sustainable; (iv) Whether homebuyers were identifiable recipients requiring restitution under Rule 133(3)(b), rather than deposit under Rule 133(3)(c); and (v) Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) was leviable.

Issue (i): Whether project completion for anti-profiteering purposes is reckoned from the application for, or actual issuance of, the occupancy certificate.

Analysis: A project is completed only upon actual grant of the occupancy certificate by the competent authority. Mere filing of an application does not establish completion. The occupancy certificate was issued during the GST period and input tax credit was availed until that date, establishing that the project continued post-GST.

Conclusion: Project completion is reckoned from actual issuance of the occupancy certificate, not from the application date. The finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the investigation period was correctly confined to 01.07.2017 to the date of occupancy certificate.

Analysis: Construction services supplied before issuance of the occupancy certificate remain taxable, whereas post-certificate sale of building is outside taxable supply and constitutes exempt supply for input tax credit purposes. As no admissible input tax credit benefit survives for post-certificate sales, anti-profiteering computation must end on issuance of the occupancy certificate.

Conclusion: The investigation was correctly restricted to 01.07.2017 to 13.10.2017. The finding is against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the revised methodology and quantification of profiteering were legally sustainable.

Analysis: The project fell within the category where construction commenced before GST but continued after GST, and purchasers who paid before GST remained entitled to the benefit of post-GST input tax credit. The revised computation used Chartered Accountant-certified purchase and credit data, compared pre-GST and post-GST credit ratios, calculated per-square-foot savings, and confined the calculation to the period before occupancy certification. It quantified the base benefit at Rs. 2,38,495 and GST thereon at Rs. 28,619.

Conclusion: The revised methodology and total profiteering quantification of Rs. 2,67,114 were sustainable. The finding is against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether homebuyers were identifiable recipients requiring restitution under Rule 133(3)(b), rather than deposit under Rule 133(3)(c).

Analysis: Rule 133(3)(c) is a narrow residuary mechanism applicable only where recipients are genuinely incapable of identification. Non-participation in proceedings, present untraceability, or resale of flats does not make recipients unidentifiable where the supplier's transaction, allotment, payment, and contact records disclose their identities. The general statutory remedy is restitution to identifiable recipients with interest.

Conclusion: The homebuyers were identifiable, and the profiteered amount must be refunded to them individually with interest at 18% per annum. The finding is against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) was leviable.

Analysis: The investigation period preceded the effective date of Section 171(3A). Penal provisions cannot operate retrospectively absent express legislative mandate.

Conclusion: No penalty under Section 171(3A) is leviable for the relevant period. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The additional post-GST input tax credit benefit was required to be passed on to the identifiable homebuyers through commensurate price reduction and restitution with statutory interest, while the subsequently introduced penalty provision could not govern the pre-2020 period.

Ratio Decidendi: In a real-estate anti-profiteering matter, the benefit of post-GST input tax credit must be computed only until actual issuance of the occupancy certificate and passed to identifiable purchasers; the residuary consumer welfare fund mechanism applies only where identification is genuinely impossible, and a later penal provision cannot be retrospectively applied.

Issues: (i) Whether any further statutory pre-deposit was required for admission of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal; and (ii) whether the prescribed court fee had been paid.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires payment of the prescribed pre-deposit for an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in addition to the amount deposited at the first appellate stage. Since the pre-deposit already made at the first appellate stage exceeded the amount required on the reduced tax demand, no further pre-deposit was required. The prescribed fee under Rule 110(5) was calculated with a minimum of Rs. 5,000, whereas only Rs. 3,000 had been paid, leaving a shortfall of Rs. 2,000. The appellant agreed to pay the balance.

Outcome: No further statutory pre-deposit was required. The appeal was not finally admitted; the Registry was directed to verify the earlier pre-deposit and place the matter before the Bench after payment of the short court fee, and the matter was listed for further orders.

Issues: (i) Whether the methodology adopted for determining profiteering in the real estate project was legally sustainable; (ii) whether the respondent derived additional input tax credit benefit after GST implementation and failed to pass it on to eligible homebuyers; (iii) whether interest and penalty were leviable.

Issue (i): Whether the methodology adopted for determining profiteering in the real estate project was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The methodology based on comparison of credit to purchase value in the pre-GST and post-GST periods, followed by project-wise allocation over total saleable area, was found consistent with the principles governing anti-profiteering in real estate matters. The absence of a fixed statutory formula did not invalidate the exercise, and objections based on jurisdiction, limitation, natural justice, scope of investigation, and alleged procedural defects were rejected.

Conclusion: The methodology and the DGAP report were held legally sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent derived additional input tax credit benefit after GST implementation and failed to pass it on to eligible homebuyers.

Analysis: The respondent's ITC-to-purchase-value ratio increased from 9.41% in the pre-GST period to 11.85% in the post-GST period, resulting in additional benefit of 2.44%. The Tribunal held that the benefit of additional ITC under Section 171(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had to be passed on to each eligible recipient by commensurate reduction in prices, and excess passing on to some buyers could not be set off against shortfall to others.

Conclusion: The respondent was found to have derived additional ITC benefit and to have failed to pass on the entire benefit to all eligible homebuyers.

Issue (iii): Whether interest and penalty were leviable.

Analysis: Interest was held payable under Rule 133(3)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 at 18% per annum on the profiteered amount from the date of collection till the date of return. Penalty was declined because Section 171(3A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was inserted later and could not be applied retrospectively to the period in question.

Conclusion: Interest was upheld and penalty was not leviable.

Final Conclusion: The respondent was directed to pass on the balance profiteered amount with interest, while the proposed penalty was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In real estate anti-profiteering matters, additional input tax credit benefit must be determined on a fair, project-specific basis and passed on to each eligible recipient by commensurate reduction in price; recipient-specific shortfall cannot be neutralised by excess benefit given to others, and penalty cannot be imposed retrospectively absent an operative penal provision for the relevant period.

Issues: (i) whether the respondent had contravened Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by not passing on the benefit of Input Tax Credit to the eligible homebuyers and was liable to refund the remaining profiteered amount with interest; (ii) whether penalty was leviable under Section 171(3A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for a contravention that concluded before the provision came into force.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent had contravened Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by not passing on the benefit of Input Tax Credit to the eligible homebuyers and was liable to refund the remaining profiteered amount with interest.

Analysis: The respondent accepted the investigation report and the methodology adopted for quantifying profiteering. The Tribunal accepted the report, held that the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit had not been fully passed on to 149 eligible homebuyers for the relevant period up to the receipt of the Occupancy Certificate, and held that the remaining amount had to be refunded with interest at 18% per annum under Rule 133(3)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the respondent and in favour of the Revenue. The respondent was held liable to refund the remaining profiteered amount of Rs. 11,13,155/- with interest.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty was leviable under Section 171(3A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for a contravention that concluded before the provision came into force.

Analysis: The period of contravention had ended on 22.11.2019, whereas Section 171(3A) became operative from 01.01.2020. As the alleged contravention was fully complete before the penalty provision came into force, the provision was held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the respondent. No penalty was leviable under Section 171(3A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Final Conclusion: The profiteering report was accepted, refund with interest was directed, and penalty was declined for want of temporal applicability of the penal provision.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty provision cannot be applied to a contravention that was fully completed before the provision came into force, and profiteered Input Tax Credit benefits must be passed on with interest where the statutory obligation is established.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the statutory cap under Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Outcome: The matters were listed for hearing on 20.07.2026, and the Registry was directed to obtain particulars of analogous appeals from State Benches.

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent passed on the benefit of reduction in GST rate on cinema tickets by commensurate reduction in prices, or contravened the anti-profiteering mandate. (ii) Whether the profiteered amount computed by the DGAP, as modified on re-investigation, was liable to be accepted and recovered. (iii) Whether penalty could be levied for the period in question.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent passed on the benefit of reduction in GST rate on cinema tickets by commensurate reduction in prices, or contravened the anti-profiteering mandate.

Analysis: The rate reduction on admission to cinematography films required the supplier to reduce prices commensurately. The respondent did not produce cogent evidence showing that the ticket prices were fixed or increased by any competent authority for the relevant period, and its stand was found to be internally inconsistent. The material on record showed that the base price of tickets was increased after the tax reduction instead of being reduced in line with the benefit.

Conclusion: The respondent did not pass on the benefit of GST rate reduction and contravened Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue (ii): Whether the profiteered amount computed by the DGAP, as modified on re-investigation, was liable to be accepted and recovered.

Analysis: The methodology and revised computation of the DGAP were not successfully disputed. The re-investigation reconciled the turnover discrepancy and corrected the earlier formula error, resulting in a quantified profiteered amount of Rs. 8,99,273/-. The respondent's objections did not dislodge the revised computation.

Conclusion: The DGAP reports were accepted and the profiteered amount was directed to be deposited with applicable interest and apportionment to the Consumer Welfare Funds.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty could be levied for the period in question.

Analysis: The period involved pre-dated the levy of penalty under the applicable notification, and the recipients were not identifiable for the purpose of direct restitution. On that basis, the matter was treated as falling within the relevant rule governing distribution of the amount, but without retrospective penalty.

Conclusion: No penalty was leviable.

Final Conclusion: The respondent was held liable for anti-profiteering contravention and was directed to deposit the quantified profiteered amount with interest, while penalty was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a supplier retains a tax-rate reduction by increasing the base price instead of passing on the benefit through commensurate price reduction, the supplier violates the anti-profiteering obligation and becomes liable to disgorge the profiteered amount, though penalty cannot be imposed retrospectively absent a valid enabling provision for the relevant period.

Issues: Whether the respondent had profiteered by not passing on the benefit of input tax credit to the flat purchaser under section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the project activities, agreement, booking, and payment were undertaken in the GST era, and the relevant approvals and registration were also obtained in that period. The DGAP's computation showed that the ratio of credit availed to purchase value decreased from 14.50% in the pre-GST period to 14.28% in the GST regime, indicating no incremental benefit that required passing on. The Tribunal also held that the 1% affordable housing rate introduced by Notification No. 3/2019-Central Tax (Rate) dated 29.03.2019 was not applicable to the respondent's case.

Conclusion: No contravention of section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was made out, and the allegation of profiteering was rejected.

Issues: (i) Whether the procurement support services rendered by the overseas entity were intermediary services under the IGST Act; (ii) whether the place of supply was governed by Section 13(2) or Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act; (iii) whether the appellant was entitled to refund of the IGST paid on the transaction.

Issue (i): Whether the procurement support services rendered by the overseas entity were intermediary services under the IGST Act.

Analysis: The definition of intermediary requires a person to arrange or facilitate a supply between two or more persons, and excludes a person who supplies services on its own account. The Tribunal applied the statutory test, the CBIC circular on intermediary services, and the surrounding contractual features, including the overseas entity's role as a centralized procurement hub. It found that the services were rendered on the overseas entity's own account as substantive procurement services, not as mere ancillary facilitation, and that the arrangement did not fall within the intermediary category.

Conclusion: The services were not intermediary services.

Issue (ii): Whether the place of supply was governed by Section 13(2) or Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act.

Analysis: Once the services were held not to be intermediary services, the special place-of-supply rule in Section 13(8)(b) ceased to apply. The Tribunal treated the transaction as an import of services and held that the general rule under Section 13(2) governed the place of supply.

Conclusion: The place of supply was in India and not under Section 13(8)(b).

Issue (iii): Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of the IGST paid on the transaction.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that a refund claim cannot be rejected merely because tax had earlier been paid under a mistaken understanding of liability. The refund framework under Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 89 of the CGST Rules permits such claims subject to the statutory conditions, and the earlier tax payment did not by itself bar the claim. However, on merits, since the transaction was held to be taxable as an import of services, the refund claim failed.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to refund.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on all substantive issues and the orders rejecting refund and confirming taxability were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A service provider acting on its own account and supplying substantive procurement support on a principal-to-principal basis is not an intermediary; consequently, Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act does not apply, and refund cannot be granted where the tax liability on the import of services is sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether the Respondent failed to pass on the benefit of reduction in GST rate on cinema admission tickets from 18% to 12% by commensurate reduction in prices; (ii) Whether the increase in base ticket prices pursuant to the Telangana High Court order could justify non-passing of the tax benefit; (iii) Whether the DGAP's computation of profiteering at Rs. 9,67,589/- was correct; (iv) Whether the proceedings were liable to be adjudicated ex parte on the basis of material on record; (v) Whether interest was payable on the profiteered amount and from what date; (vi) Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 was leviable.

Issue (i): Whether the Respondent failed to pass on the benefit of reduction in GST rate on cinema admission tickets from 18% to 12% by commensurate reduction in prices.

Analysis: Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 required any reduction in tax rate to be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. The record showed that after the rate reduction with effect from 01.01.2019, the Respondent increased the base price of tickets and kept the cum-tax price unchanged, so the benefit of the reduced tax rate was not passed on to consumers.

Conclusion: The Respondent failed to pass on the benefit of reduction in GST rate and was held to have profiteered.

Issue (ii): Whether the increase in base ticket prices pursuant to the Telangana High Court order could justify non-passing of the tax benefit.

Analysis: The liberty granted by the High Court to collect proposed fares was conditional and did not override the statutory mandate under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The regulatory power of the State over ticket pricing did not dilute the obligation to pass on the GST benefit to recipients.

Conclusion: The High Court order did not justify non-passing of the benefit, and the defence was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the DGAP's computation of profiteering at Rs. 9,67,589/- was correct.

Analysis: The profiteering was computed on the increase in base price and included the GST collected on the additional realization. The amount of base profiteering and the corresponding GST component were accepted as properly worked out on the available material.

Conclusion: The DGAP's computation was accepted and the profiteered amount was determined at Rs. 9,67,589/-.

Issue (iv): Whether the proceedings were liable to be adjudicated ex parte on the basis of material on record.

Analysis: Despite repeated notices, confirmed service, and multiple opportunities, the Respondent neither appeared nor filed written submissions. The proceedings were therefore taken up on the basis of the material available on record, and the principles of natural justice were treated as satisfied.

Conclusion: The matter was rightly adjudicated ex parte.

Issue (v): Whether interest was payable on the profiteered amount and from what date.

Analysis: Rule 133(3)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017 was inserted with effect from 28.06.2019. Since the profiteering period extended from 01.01.2019 to 30.09.2019, interest could operate only prospectively from the date the rule came into force.

Conclusion: Interest was payable at 18% per annum from 28.06.2019 till the date of actual refund or deposit.

Issue (vi): Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 was leviable.

Analysis: The penal provision under Section 171(3A) came into force on 01.01.2020, whereas the alleged profiteering related to a prior period. A penal provision cannot be applied retrospectively in the absence of express legislative intent.

Conclusion: Penalty was not leviable.

Final Conclusion: The Respondent was held to have profiteered by not passing on the GST rate reduction benefit, and was directed to return the profiteered amount with interest, but no penalty was imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: Any reduction in GST rate must be passed on to consumers by commensurate reduction in price, and conditional permission under state cinema regulation cannot override this statutory anti-profiteering obligation; interest follows prospectively from the date the applicable interest provision comes into force, while penalty provisions operate only prospectively unless expressly made retrospective.

Issues: (i) Whether the erstwhile anti-profiteering authority had jurisdiction to direct further investigation and re-investigation into the respondent's supplies; (ii) whether the omission of the anti-profiteering authority-related rules rendered the proceedings non est; (iii) whether the proceedings were barred by limitation; (iv) whether interest or penalty could be imposed; and (v) whether the respondent had profiteered by not passing on the benefit of GST rate reduction by commensurate price reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the erstwhile anti-profiteering authority had jurisdiction to direct further investigation and re-investigation into the respondent's supplies?

Analysis: Rule 133(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 empowered the authority to refer the matter back for further investigation where the report warranted such inquiry. The subsequent insertion of Rule 133(5) was treated as clarificatory. The respondent's own earlier submissions had invited consideration of whether benefits had been passed on to other customers, and the authority's direction for further investigation was therefore held to be within jurisdiction. The scope of investigation under Rule 129 was also treated as wide enough to cover allied and unenumerated matters relevant to section 171.

Conclusion: The challenge to jurisdiction failed and the direction for further investigation was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the omission of the anti-profiteering authority-related rules rendered the proceedings non est?

Analysis: The omission of Rules 122, 124, 125, 134 and 137 did not extinguish proceedings already initiated under section 171. The legal framework continued to preserve the anti-profiteering mechanism, and the later vesting of jurisdiction in the Tribunal reinforced that the regime had undergone only a change in forum, not abolition of the underlying liability or pending proceedings.

Conclusion: The proceedings were held to survive notwithstanding omission of the said rules.

Issue (iii): Whether the proceedings were barred by limitation?

Analysis: The six-month period in Rule 133(1) was treated as directory and not mandatory, particularly in light of the beneficial nature of anti-profiteering legislation. Absence of a specified consequence for delay meant that lapse of the timeline did not vitiate the proceedings as a whole.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation was rejected.

Issue (iv): Whether interest or penalty could be imposed?

Analysis: The period of alleged profiteering preceded the introduction of the penalty provision in section 171(3A) and the interest provision in Rule 133(3)(c). On that temporal basis, those fiscal consequences were not attracted to the respondent for the period in question.

Conclusion: Interest and penalty were held not recoverable.

Issue (v): Whether the respondent had profiteered by not passing on the benefit of GST rate reduction by commensurate price reduction?

Analysis: The rate of GST on the affected FMCG goods had reduced from 28% to 18%, but the respondent did not correspondingly reduce prices. Applying section 171(1), the authority held that each recipient is entitled to the benefit of tax reduction by way of commensurate price reduction, and benefits passed to some other customers do not absolve failure to pass on the benefit to the actual recipient. The respondent's own earlier statement that a substantial amount may not have been passed on to the customer was treated as supporting the finding. The DGAP's recomputation of profiteering at Rs. 13,61,51,254/- was accepted.

Conclusion: The respondent was found to have profiteered Rs. 13,61,51,254/- by not passing on the GST rate reduction benefit.

Final Conclusion: The respondent's liability for profiteering was affirmed, the quantified amount was directed to be deposited into the applicable Consumer Welfare Funds, and the procedural objections except those relating to interest and penalty were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where GST rate reduction is not passed on to the recipient by commensurate reduction in price, profiteering under section 171 is established for the affected supplies; the investigation power is wide, procedural timelines are directory, and later omission of forum-constituting rules does not extinguish pending proceedings.

Issues: Whether a fresh investigation could be initiated on a complaint alleging profiteering for the same project and same period after the matter had already been finally adjudicated and affirmed in earlier proceedings.

Analysis: The issue of profiteering for the project and period in question had already been investigated by the DGAP, quantified, and decided by the erstwhile NAA under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. That determination was upheld in writ proceedings, and the complainant's subsequent withdrawal did not alter the fact that the subject matter had attained finality. In these circumstances, reopening the same cause on a fresh complaint would amount to re-litigation of a concluded issue and would be contrary to the doctrine of res judicata.

Conclusion: No fresh investigation was permissible, and the proceedings were held to be not maintainable.