Anti-profiteering finality bars a fresh probe into the same project and period after prior adjudication.

A fresh investigation into alleged profiteering for the same project and period was impermissible because the issue had already been investigated, quantified, and finally decided under the GST anti-profiteering framework. That determination had been upheld in writ proceedings, and the complainant's later withdrawal did not unsettle the finality of the earlier adjudication. Reopening the same cause on a new complaint would amount to re-litigation of a concluded matter and would be barred by res judicata. The proceedings were therefore not maintainable.

---

---

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.

---