Real Estate Developer Wins Tax Credit Case: No Mandatory ITC Benefit Pass-Through for Projects Beyond Initial Development

SC ruled that a real estate developer was not liable to pass on Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefits to buyers for projects beyond "Tinsel Town". The investigation revealed the developer exclusively worked on one project under a single GSTIN. As no profiteering was found and the project was previously investigated, the anti-profiteering proceedings were dropped.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the determination of whether the respondent was liable to pass on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to buyers in relation to projects other than "Tinsel Town" under the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Summary:
The Competition Commission of India received a report from the Director General of Anti-Profiteering regarding the investigation under Rule 133(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The report stated that the respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC to recipients during a specific period. However, upon further investigation, it was found that the respondent was only executing the project "Tinsel Town" and had not undertaken any other construction projects. This led to the conclusion that the respondent was not required to pass on the benefit of ITC as per Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.

The Commission examined the report and confirmed that the respondent was solely working on the "Tinsel Town" project, which had already been investigated for profiteering. It was verified that no other projects were being executed by the respondent under the same GSTIN. The Commission also noted that the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax confirmed that the respondent had not undertaken any other projects apart from "Tinsel Town."

Based on these findings, it was determined that the case did not fall under the Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Since the respondent was only involved in the "Tinsel Town" project, which had already been investigated for profiteering, the proceedings against the respondent were dropped. The order was to be supplied to all parties involved, and the case file was to be closed.

---