TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The project "Morning Raaga" is a residential project situated at Alkapoor Township, Manikonda, Hyderabad. The Respondent, M/s Anuhar Homes Private Limited, is the developer of the said project. The project was undertaken pursuant to a Joint Development Agreement executed with Shri N. Rami Reddy (hereinafter referred to as the "Co-Respondent"), who was the owner of the land on which the project was developed. Under the said arrangement, the Respondent undertook the development and construction of the project, while the Co-Respondent contributed the land. 3. The complainant submitted that she had bought Flat No. 205 from the Respondent in the Project "Morning Raaga" in the year 2017 and has alleged that the Respondent have charged complete 12% GST on the payment made towards the purchase of flat in 2017 and the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter referred to as "ITC") to her by way of commensurate reduction in price. 4. Accordingly, the Directorate General Anti-Profiteering (hereinafter referred to as "the DGAP") conducted the investigation and submitted its Report dated 16.09.2021 to the erstwhile National Anti- Profiteering Authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ised in the construction of the project. 8.4. Based on the information furnished by the Respondent, the DGAP computed the purchase value and the ITC attributable to the project as under: Table - A S. No. Particulars Pre-GST Period Post-GST Period 1. Purchase Value of Goods and Services (Excluding Taxes and Duties) 8,71,82,234 16,34,59,839 2. Credit of Central Excise Duty and Service Tax Availed - - 3. Credit of VAT availed - - 4. Total Credit Availed in Pre-GST Period - - 5. ITC of GST Availed - 1,73,84,508 6. Ratio of Credit Availed to Purchase Value (in %) 0 10.63 8.. The DGAP observed that, since no eligible Central Excise Duty or VAT credit was available during the pre-GST period and GST ITC amounting to Rs. 1,73,84,508 was available during the post-GST period, the Respondent derived an additional ITC benefit equivalent to 10.63% of the purchase value. 8.6. The DGAP further observed that the effective rate of GST on construction service was 12% after deduction of one-third value towards land. Accordingly, the additional ITC benefit of 10.63% was required to be passed on to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no requests for examination under the anti-profiteering provisions are maintainable on or after 01.04.2025. It was contended that, since the notification does not contain a saving clause, the present proceedings could not be continued beyond the said date. 11.2. In support of the above contention, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court in Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers v. Union of India [2025 (5) TMI 1811-Uttarakhand High Court, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in M/s Addwrap Packaging Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2025 (6) TMI 1156-Gujarat High Court], and the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in B.V.L. Granites & Aparna Organics Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes [2026 (1) TMI 1334-Andhra Pradesh High Court], to contend that omission of a statutory provision without a saving clause results in abatement of pending proceedings. 11.3. The Respondent further submitted that although the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) upheld the constitutional validity of the anti-profiteering provisions, the judgment did not consider the effect of Notification No. 19/2024-Central Tax dated 30.09.2024, no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect Morning Raaga". This clearly confirms that the Noticee have benefited from additional input tax credit during post-GST. In view of the above, the DGAP is directed to compute the profiteering amount on account of available ITC for the relevant period for this project (April, 2016 to June, 2017). For this purpose, the Respondent shall furnish requisite documents as required by the DGAP. In the event of non-cooperation by the Respondent, the DGAP shall proceed on the basis of material available on record." 14. Despite the aforesaid specific directions and repeated opportunities granted by this Tribunal, neither the Respondent nor the Co-Respondent appeared before this Tribunal on any subsequent date of hearing. Further, except for the written submissions dated 12.03.2026, no further submissions, documents or evidence, as directed by this Tribunal, were furnished by the Respondent to the DGAP or placed on record. 15. In these circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that adequate opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Respondent. However, the Respondent chose not to avail the opportunities granted and failed to produce any material to rebut the findings of the DG....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plementation of GST results in additional ITC becoming available to a supplier, such benefit is required to be passed on by way of commensurate reduction in the consideration charged from the recipients. 19. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that the earlier investigation was revisited pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held that no fixed or uniform mathematical formula could be prescribed for determination of profiteering and that the methodology must be evolved having regard to the peculiar facts of each case. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the DGAP undertook a fresh investigation by determining the actual ITC availed and utilised by the Respondent during the post-GST period and the savings attributable to such additional credit. 20. The revised investigation reveals that during the relevant pre-GST period, the Respondent was not entitled to avail any eligible CENVAT credit of Central Excise Duty or VAT in respect of the project. However, upon the introduction of GST, the Respondent became entitled to avail ITC of GST paid on inputs and input services utilised in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the DGAP that the Respondent has profiteered to the extent of Rs. 95,13,829/- (inclusive of GST) in respect of the project "Morning Raaga". Issue No. (i) is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Respondent. Determination of Issue (ii) 25. The Respondent has contended that in view of Notification No. 19/2024-Central Tax dated 30.09.2024, issued under the proviso to Section 171(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, the present proceedings are not maintainable after 01.04.2025, as the notification does not contain any saving clause preserving pending proceedings. It has been argued that once the anti-profiteering mechanism ceased to operate from the said date, continuation of the present proceedings is legally impermissible. In support of its contention, the Respondent has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court in Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers (supra), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Addwrap Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (supra), and the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in B.V.L. Granites & Aparna Organics Ltd. (supra). 26. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to reproduce Notification No. 19/2024-Central Tax dated 30....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, we hold that Notification No. 19/2024-Central Tax dated 30.09.2024 does not render the present proceedings non-maintainable. The objection raised by the Respondent is, therefore, devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected. Issue No. (ii) is answered against the Respondent and in favour of the Revenue. Determination of Issue (iii) 31. The Respondent has further contended that the legality and validity of the antiprofiteering provisions under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 are presently under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Excel Rasayan Pvt. Ltd. (supra). It has, therefore, been prayed that the present proceedings be kept pending till the Hon'ble Supreme Court finally adjudicates the issue. 32. The DGAP, in its clarification dated 15.04.2026, has opposed the aforesaid contention by submitting that the Respondent has neither challenged the antiprofiteering provisions before any court nor obtained any interim order or stay against the present proceedings. It has been contended that the mere pendency of proceedings in another matter does not preclude continuation of the present proceedings. 33. We have considered the rival submissions. It is a....