GST Update

Desk of CA. Praveen Sharma – 949 Series (CAPS)

The Delhi Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal dealt with a case relating to anti-profiteering against M/s Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. The proceedings originated from an investigation report dated 31 July 2025 submitted by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) under Section 171 of the CGST Act and Rule 129 of the CGST Rules. The case was based on complaints filed by several homebuyers who alleged that the developer had not passed on the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit (ITC) after the introduction of GST.

The matter was referred by the Standing Committee to DGAP for investigation covering the period from 1 July 2017 to 31 March 2024. An earlier report had been submitted in 2021, but the case was later remanded for further investigation.

During the investigation, it was alleged that the developer failed to pass on the benefit of increased ITC to buyers in three housing projects – Panchsheel Greens, Pebbles and Hynish Tower-10. After examining the records, DGAP calculated the profiteered amount project-wise. The profiteering was determined as ?36,73,818 in the Pebbles project, ?29,68,382 in Hynish Tower-10 and ?32,30,274 in Panchsheel Greens. The total profiteering worked out to ?98,72,474, which included GST of ?10,57,765.

DGAP also confirmed that all homebuyers were identifiable with proper unit details, enabling the benefit to be passed on to each recipient.

The respondent developer informed the Tribunal through email that it had no further submissions and requested the case to be decided on the basis of the records already available.

After hearing the parties, the Tribunal concluded that profiteering had indeed occurred. It directed the developer to pass on ?98,72,474 along with applicable interest to the homebuyers within 30 days and submit a compliance report within two months.

The Tribunal also noted that penalty provisions under Section 171(3A) would apply, which provides for a penalty of 10% of the profiteered amount if the amount is not deposited within 30 days from the date of the order. The matter was accordingly disposed of and copies of the order were directed to be sent to the concerned authorities.

LINK:CA. Praveen Sharma on Linkedin

Regards
CAPS