Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, Anti-Profiteering Division · GST · AKHB case note
Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Ireo Pvt. Ltd. and Ireo Residence Company Pvt. Ltd. (Gurgaon Hills and Grand Hyatt Gurgaon Residences)
NAPA/51/PB/2025
No neutral or reporter citation printed in the identified official order. ·
Final reasoned merits determination accepting a project-specific no-profiteering conclusion and dropping proceedings.
The captioned Ireo respondents, limited to the two projects and facts considered.
01 · Facts of the case and issues
The investigation arose from NAA Order 14/2019 dated 21 October 2019. After an initial DGAP report dated 31 December 2020, reinvestigation followed the Delhi High Court’s 29 January 2024 Reckitt Benckiser decision. The revised report dated 19 August 2025 was considered at the 9 October 2025 hearing. Gurgaon Hills received an occupation certificate on 29 June 2022. The order records that 182 of 287 units were sold after that certificate and treats credit attributable to post-completion sales separately. For Grand Hyatt Gurgaon Residences, the respondents reported that the original project had been scrapped and the land and development rights transferred under a 17 November 2023 sale agreement to Oberoi Realty, with buyer consents.
Source: Paras 1–7.3 and 8; physical pp. 2–14.
02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court
For Gurgaon Hills, the pre-GST period is April 2012–June 2017 and the post-GST period ends on 29 June 2022. Pre-GST credit of ₹14,36,08,290 and net post-GST credit of ₹1,70,11,835 were compared against purchase values of ₹4,85,67,63,482 and ₹87,33,34,360. The resulting ratios fell from 2.96% to 1.95%. The net post-GST figure adds transitional credit and deducts ineligible-credit and occupation-certificate-related reversals. The source describes allocation of construction costs using the project’s area share.
For Grand Hyatt, the order records the scrapping and transfer of the original project. It cites correspondence dated 10 December 2024 stating that the replacement development had not commenced. Applying the post-April 2019 residential rate regime described in Notification 03/2019–Central Tax (Rate), the Tribunal reasoned that the envisaged new project would have no ITC benefit to pass on. These are the order’s recorded submissions and findings; the underlying sale agreement, buyer consents and present construction status were not independently verified.
Source: Paras 6.3–7.6; physical pp.8–14.
03 · Judicial decision and operative relief
The Tribunal accepted the DGAP’s project-specific analysis, concluded that no tax-rate or ITC benefit accrued in respect of Gurgaon Hills and Grand Hyatt Gurgaon Residences, and dropped the proceedings under Section 171. No quantified award, interest or penalty is ordered. The final order is dated and pronounced 28 October 2025.
Source: Paras 8–12, physical pp.14–16; summary physical p.2.
04 · In favour of
Final reasoned no-profiteering determination; proceedings dropped after evaluation of the investigation, rather than a hearing adjournment or interim direction.
Source: Operative paras 10–12.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: Use net eligible credit and a consistent investigation period when testing an incremental GST benefit. In this order,₹9,45,23,757 +₹1,02,86,571 −₹4,91,91,841 −₹3,86,06,652 =₹1,70,11,835. The computation distinguishes transitional credit and two types of reversal rather than comparing gross credits alone. The occupation-certificate date and post-completion sales affect that analysis.
The Grand Hyatt reasoning is tied to a scrapped project and the described replacement development. Do not generalise the absence of ITC into a rule that every no-ITC transaction is exempt from all rate-reduction pass-through obligations. Nor does this note independently certify the transfer, buyer consent or current construction stage.
Maintain a separate record from NAPA 73/PB/2025, decided on the same day for Skyon, City Central and Managed Service Apartment. Different projects and case identities remain distinct even where methodology and parties overlap.
Source: AKHB analysis of paras 6–10; physical pp.8–15.
Source and verification
Complete official source read; identity, calculations and operative pages visually checked. · Individual hosted copy of the original judgment
Complete 16-page official order, including administrative summary. Underlying project accounts, returns, credit reversals and DGAP working papers were not independently obtained.
Source checked 2026-10-17. Paragraph references follow the identified official judgment; PDF-page references follow that source file. The court’s printed paragraph numbers may differ from commercial reporting.
Compared with 202 published identities and source hashes and 199 nonempty normalized source texts; three scanned baseline sources cannot support text-hash comparison.
The two Ireo orders of 28 October 2025 are separate cases involving different projects; do not merge on party/date alone.
Statutory scope
Historical source-based explanation of the law and notifications applied in this order; not a current statutory consolidation.
Later treatment and present applicability
Bounded exact-case, party and appeal/recall searches on 17 October 2026 identified no later primary order affecting this decision. This is not exhaustive docket clearance or proof that no appeal exists.
Additional identified sources
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
AI-assisted research checked against the identified primary source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on the facts, tax period, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless the note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.