Pranav B Prem

The Goods and Services Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Anti-Profiteering Division at Delhi, has directed the builder of the Diya Greencity project in Ghaziabad to return ₹20,21,440 along with applicable interest to homebuyers to whom the benefit of input tax credit (ITC) under the GST regime had not been passed on. The direction was issued after the Tribunal found that although substantial benefits had been extended to a majority of buyers, a group of homebuyers had been left out in violation of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Also Read: Delhi ITAT Rules Excise Duty and Interest Subsidies Granted to Promote Industrial Growth Are Capital Receipts

The order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Shri Mayank Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Shri Anil Kumar Gupta (Technical Member). The Tribunal recorded that while ITC benefits amounting to nearly ₹13 crore had been passed on to 1,177 eligible homebuyers, no benefit had been extended to 21 homebuyers, resulting in profiteering to the extent of ₹20,21,440.

The matter arose from a complaint filed by a homebuyer who had purchased a flat in the Diya Greencity project. With effect from April 1, 2019, Notification No. 03/2019 reduced the GST rate on affordable housing projects to 1 per cent without ITC, while permitting ongoing projects to either continue at the old effective rate of 8 per cent with ITC or opt for the new concessional rate. The builder in the present case opted to continue under the old regime and avail full ITC benefits under the said notification.

Following the restructuring of the anti-profiteering framework, matters earlier handled by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority were transferred to the Competition Commission of India. Acting on the complaint, the CCI, under the chairpersonship of Smt. Ravneet Kaur, directed the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) to conduct a fresh investigation under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules. The DGAP was specifically asked to examine whether ITC benefits had been passed on to all homebuyers, whether certain flats qualified under the affordable housing scheme, the impact of cancelled flats, and whether settlements claimed by the builder had actually resulted in passing on of benefits.

Also Read: Income Tax Act | ITAT Mumbai: Long-Term Capital Gains on Listed Shares Cannot Be Treated as Bogus Without Concrete Evidence

In its findings before the CCI, the DGAP reported that based on a comparison of pre-GST and post-GST ITC ratios, the net profiteering amount yet to be passed on was ₹12.23 crore to 1,333 homebuyers. It was found that the builder had gained additional ITC to the extent of 5.43 per cent of turnover, which was required to be passed on to buyers in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act. The DGAP further clarified that despite partial passing on of benefits, the obligation had not been fulfilled in respect of all recipients.

The builder disputed the methodology adopted by the DGAP and contended that settlements had been reached with certain homebuyers. However, upon verification during reinvestigation, it was found that ITC benefits had not been passed on uniformly. The reinvestigation report dated November 7, 2025 indicated that the total ITC benefit accrued to the builder post-GST was ₹10,49,43,145 along with GST of ₹83,95,452, aggregating to ₹11,33,38,597. Against this, benefits amounting to ₹13,19,64,459 had been passed on to 1,177 buyers, leaving out 21 homebuyers.

Also Read: ITAT Kolkata Rules Only Brokerage from Finance Broking Can Be Treated as Undisclosed Income; Rejects Additions Based on Uncorroborated ₹20-Crore Disclosure

When the matter came up before the GSTAT, the builder gave an undertaking stating that it would pass on the remaining GST rate reduction benefit to the 21 affected homebuyers. It was submitted that in order to avoid further litigation, the builder unconditionally accepted the findings, observations and conclusions contained in the DGAP report without raising any objection. Taking note of the undertaking and the final liability determined by the DGAP, the GSTAT accepted the same and directed the builder to return ₹20,21,440 along with applicable interest to the concerned homebuyers. The Tribunal accordingly closed the anti-profiteering proceedings.

Appearance

For Appellant: Additional Assistant Director Suneel Kumar assisted by Anurag Gupta, Inspector

For Respondent: Chartered Accountant D.K Goel

Cause Title: DGAP vs. Diya Greencity Private Limited, Project-Diya Greencity

Case No: NAPA/91/PB/2025

Coram: Shri Mayank Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Shri Anil Kumar Gupta (Technical Member)