https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785136 The dominant issue is profiteering under Section 171 CGST Act: relying on the DGAP report and admission that some ITC benefit had been passed, the GSTAT found the respondent contravened Section 171 as the DGAP's quantification error did not negate the statutory obligation to pass ITC benefit. Outcome: the respondent is directed to refund Rs. 3,12,78,937 to 1,104 eligible home buyers with applicable interest under Section 133(3)(B) CGST Act, to effect repayment within three months and file a compliance report with the jurisdictional GST commissioner and the DGAP. en-us Wed, 14 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Jan 2026 08:45:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785136 The dominant issue is profiteering under Section 171 CGST Act: relying on the DGAP report and admission that some ITC benefit had been passed, the GSTAT found the respondent contravened Section 171 as the DGAP's quantification error did not negate the statutory obligation to pass ITC benefit. Outcome: the respondent is directed to refund Rs. 3,12,78,937 to 1,104 eligible home buyers with applicable interest under Section 133(3)(B) CGST Act, to effect repayment within three months and file a compliance report with the jurisdictional GST commissioner and the DGAP. Case-Laws GST Wed, 14 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785136