Anti-profiteering jurisdiction limited to ITC benefit pass-on; GST complaint on preferential location charges held outside the mechanism.

Anti-profiteering inquiry was confined to whether post-GST tax benefits, including input tax credit, were passed on to buyers, and the Commission treated 01.07.2017 to 31.07.2019 as the correct comparison period because restricting the analysis to 16.07.2017 would exclude substantial post-completion ITC. On that basis, no additional ITC benefit was found to have accrued, and the respondent was not liable. A complaint challenging GST on preferential location charges was held outside anti-profiteering jurisdiction because it did not concern non-passing of ITC benefit or tax reduction, and was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the investigation period and computation of input tax credit for anti-profiteering analysis were correctly taken up to 31.07.2019 despite receipt of completion certificate on 17.07.2017; (ii) whether the complaint regarding GST charged on preferential location charges was maintainable before the anti-profiteering authority.

Issue (i): whether the investigation period and computation of input tax credit for anti-profiteering analysis were correctly taken up to 31.07.2019 despite receipt of completion certificate on 17.07.2017

Analysis: The Commission accepted the re-investigation report and held that restricting the post-GST computation only up to 16.07.2017 would leave out a substantial portion of input tax credit earned after the completion certificate. Since the object of anti-profiteering inquiry is to assess the full post-GST benefit, the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.07.2019 was treated as the correct period for comparison. On that basis, the post-GST ITC ratio was found not to show any additional benefit over the pre-GST position.

Conclusion: The investigation period and ITC computation were held to be correct, and no additional benefit of input tax credit was found to have accrued to the respondent.

Issue (ii): whether the complaint regarding GST charged on preferential location charges was maintainable before the anti-profiteering authority

Analysis: The Commission held that the grievance about levy of GST on preferential location charges did not fall within the limited remit of the anti-profiteering mechanism, which is confined to examining whether the benefit of input tax credit or tax reduction has been passed on to buyers. As the complaint did not establish non-passing of any ITC benefit, the matter was held to lie outside the authority's anti-profiteering jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The complaint on GST charged on preferential location charges was held to be not maintainable before the anti-profiteering authority.

Final Conclusion: The respondent was found not liable under the anti-profiteering provisions, and the complaint was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Anti-profiteering proceedings are confined to determining whether post-GST tax benefits in the form of input tax credit or tax reduction have been passed on to recipients, and a grievance unrelated to that limited inquiry is outside the authority's jurisdiction.

---