Anti-profiteering under GST not attracted where project phases and bookings arose only after GST, with no pre-GST credit base.

Section 171(1) of the CGST Act was found inapplicable to project phases that were registered, advertised, allotted and paid for only after GST came into force. The analysis noted that Phase II was launched post-GST, Phase III had not been launched or registered during the relevant period, and environmental clearance was also obtained only after GST implementation. Because there was no pre-GST tax rate or input tax credit base for comparison, and no pre-GST CENVAT credit had been availed for the exempt affordable housing service, no additional input tax credit benefit could be said to have arisen for passing on to homebuyers. The anti-profiteering allegation therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent had earned an additional input tax credit benefit that was not passed on to homebuyers, and whether the provisions of section 171(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were attracted in respect of Phase II and Phase III of the project.

Analysis: The project phases under scrutiny were found to have been registered, advertised, allotted, and paid for only in the post-GST period. Phase II was launched after GST, while Phase III had not even been launched or registered during the relevant period. The construction activity could not have commenced before environmental clearance, which was also issued after GST came into force. In such a situation, there was no pre-GST tax rate or input tax credit structure against which any post-GST position could be compared. The record also showed that no CENVAT credit had been availed in the pre-GST period for the exempt affordable housing service.

Conclusion: No contravention of section 171(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was established, and the profiteering allegation failed.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings ended in dismissal of the anti-profiteering case, as the impugned project phases were held to be outside the ambit of the alleged profiteering claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 171(1) is not attracted where the project, booking, allotment, and payment transactions arise only after GST implementation and there is no pre-GST tax or credit base for comparison.

---