GSTAT Delhi held that where developer passed ITC benefit to eligible buyers, no anti-profiteering liability survives. Though DGAP initially quantified profiteering, respondent had already passed excess benefit and later paid balance to one buyer. Tribunal accepted DGAP report and closed proceedings under Section 171

Bombay High Court held that liability to pay GST and interest for delayed payment primarily lies on supplier who failed to issue tax invoice and discharge GST within prescribed time. Recipient cannot be forced to bear interest burden merely based on contractual clauses. Since supplier issued invoice after long delay and failed statutory compliance, recovery of interest from lessee is held illegal and refund is ordered

A homebuyer filed a complaint alleging that M/s Realgem Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., developer of “Rustomjee Crown Phase-I”, did not pass on the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit (ITC) after implementation of GST, in violation of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 (anti-profiteering provisions).

Response to Summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017

The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging Show Cause Notice No.105/2023-AUDIT-I dated 26.06.2023 covering tax period 2017–2020. The notice proposed substantial GST demand mainly on alleged wrong classification of Coconut Oil, excess ITC availment, mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, interest liability, blocked credits, and other reconciliation differences.

The applicant, Hi Care Remedy Private Limited, engaged in manufacturing medical disposables and PPE under a valid medical device licence, sought clarity on GST classification of various products such as EVA gloves, sterile aprons, OT shoe covers, probe covers, camera covers, cable covers, drapes and sheets. The company argued that these items are exclusively used in hospitals and healthcare institutions, are sterilized, medically certified, and therefore should be classified as medical devices or protective garments rather than general plastic articles.

McNROE Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd. (brands like Wild Stone, Secret Temptation, Heaven’s Garden) sought a ruling on GST classification and rate for shaving cream and shaving foam. The company argued both are meant for the same purpose—softening facial hair and helping smooth shaving—and differ only in form: cream needs manual lathering, while foam comes pre-lathered from an aerosol can. On this basis, they requested that shaving foam should be treated the same as shaving cream and get the lower GST rate introduced from 22 September 2025.

The petitioner challenged an appellate order dated April 30, 2025 by which its appeal against an adjudication order dated February 25, 2023 was dismissed solely on the ground of delay.

The petitioner challenged an appellate order dated April 30, 2025 by which its appeal against an adjudication order dated February 25, 2023 was dismissed solely on the ground of delay.

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 20.01.2025 passed in Form DRC-07 for the tax period September 2021 to March 2022. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without granting a proper personal hearing and, therefore, in violation of principles of natural justice. It was prayed that the impugned order be quashed and fresh adjudication be conducted after giving a fair opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner, a State Tax Officer, challenged the suspension order dated 04.08.2025 passed in contemplation of disciplinary inquiry.

The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 05.02.2025 issued in Form GST DRC-07 for the tax period 2017–2018. The order was passed after a show cause notice dated 30.08.2024, to which the petitioner had submitted a reply.