TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax Credit (ITC) to him by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the flat upon introduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) w.e.f. 01.07.2017, thereby contravening Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGST Act, 2017'). 3. The Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering, in its meeting, examined the application and forwarded the same to the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (hereinafter referred to as 'the DGAP') for a detailed investigation under Rule 129(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 4. The investigation was subject to the binding directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 29.01.2024 in Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine Del 588]. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted as under: "124. This Court is of the view that no fixed/uniform method or mathematical formula can be laid down for determining profiteering as the facts of each case and each industry may be different. The determination of the profiteered amount has to be computed by taking into account the relevant and peculiar facts of each case. There is no one size th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04.2024 to the Respondent under Rule 129 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The period of investigation, as recorded in the DGAP report, was from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2024; however, the determination of the period of contravention, i.e., the period during which the Respondent is alleged to have profiteered and failed to pass on ITC benefit, is distinct from the period of investigation. 6. The Respondent had received the Occupancy Certificate for the project "White Orchid" on 22.11.2019; therefore, no further construction activity or ITC accrual pertains to the homebuyers covered under the investigation. Consequently, the DGAP, for calculation purposes, restricted the computation of the profiteered amount for the period from 01.07.2017 to 22.11.2019. The period from 23.11.2019 onwards was excluded from the scope of the calculation, as the Respondent's obligation to pass on ITC benefit to the homebuyers of the said project ceased upon issuance of the Occupancy Certificate. 7. The DGAP, following the mandate of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Reckitt Benckiser (supra), adopted the methodology of calculating total savings on account of the introduction of GST for the project and dividing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....original complainants in the matter. However, his name is missing from the Investigation Report submitted by the DGAP dated 08.12.2025. The representative of the DGAP assured the tribunal that they will file a clarification with respect to the claim of Shri Dheeraj Jaiswal. No other substantive objections were raised during the course of the hearings. 10. Subsequently, the DGAP, vide its letter dated 29.05.2026, confirmed that the name of Shri Dheeraj Jaiswal appears at Sr. No. 61 in the list of 149 homebuyers as detailed in Para 27 of the investigation report dated 08.12.2025. The DGAP further submitted that Shri Dheeraj Jaiswal was a Co-Applicant in the original report dated 27.11.2020 and accordingly requested that he may be permitted to be made a Co-Applicant in the present case. In view of the said communication, the Tribunal hereby permits the impleadment of Shri Dheeraj Jaiswal as a Co-Applicant in the present proceedings. 11. Moreover, the Respondent filed its written submissions on 10.05.2026 via e-mail, wherein it unconditionally accepted the findings and conclusions contained in the DGAP report dated 08.12.2025. The Respondent did not raise any objection regarding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er to ensure that such conduct which leads to profiteering does not take place." Consequently, the Respondent is liable to pay interest at 18% per annum on the profiteered amount of Rs. 11,13,155/-. The interest shall be computed from the respective dates on which the Respondent collected the excess consideration from each of the 149 homebuyers, as reflected in the Respondent's books of account, until the date of actual refund. 15. Regarding penalty, Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017, which came into force with effect from 01.01.2020, stipulates as under: "Where the Authority referred to in sub-section (2) after holding examination as required under the said sub-section comes to the conclusion that any registered person has profiteered under sub-section (1), such person shall be liable to pay penalty equivalent to ten per cent. of the amount so profiteered: Provided that no penalty shall be leviable if the profiteered amount is deposited within thirty days of the date of passing of the order by the Authority." Upon careful examination, the Tribunal notes that the period of contravention in the present case is from 01.07.2017 up to 22.11.2019, being th....