https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468828 Additional input tax credit under anti-profiteering provisions was alleged to have been retained without commensurate price reduction, but the respondent contended that 70 flats were booked after GST and that those units were freshly negotiated. Because the DGAP clarification indicated that this claim required examination, the existing report was treated as requiring reconsideration. The Authority directed a further investigation under rule 133(4), extended the inquiry period up to 30.10.2020 or until issuance of the completion or occupancy certificate, whichever was earlier, and required verification of compliance in other projects, if any. No final finding on profiteering was returned. en-us Fri, 27 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 May 2026 12:55:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468828 Additional input tax credit under anti-profiteering provisions was alleged to have been retained without commensurate price reduction, but the respondent contended that 70 flats were booked after GST and that those units were freshly negotiated. Because the DGAP clarification indicated that this claim required examination, the existing report was treated as requiring reconsideration. The Authority directed a further investigation under rule 133(4), extended the inquiry period up to 30.10.2020 or until issuance of the completion or occupancy certificate, whichever was earlier, and required verification of compliance in other projects, if any. No final finding on profiteering was returned. Case-Laws GST Fri, 27 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468828