Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, Anti-Profiteering Division · GST · AKHB case note
Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Shree Suktam Enterprise
NAPA/157/PB/2025
No neutral or reporter citation printed in the identified official order. ·
Final reasoned closure because the evidence was insufficient to sustain further proceedings; no affirmative verification of tax compliance.
Respondent on closure of the present anti-profiteering proceeding; no general compliance clearance or finding on a future billing inquiry.
01 · Facts of the case and issues
Proceedings followed investigation of the supply chain of S.R. Lifesciences, including Shree Suktam Enterprise and the product Eclat Serum 30gm. A notice dated 9 August 2023 concerned pass-through of a GST-rate reduction effective 15 November 2017, with an investigation period extending to 31 July 2023. The notice was returned marked LEFT. Repeated requests to Gujarat tax authorities, CGST and DGGI did not produce records sufficient to establish relevant supplies and price pass-through. A reported site visit found another business at the stated address.
DGAP obtained some returns and basic taxpayer details but reported that they were insufficient. Further investigation was directed, followed by more unsuccessful requests. No respondent appeared at the Tribunal’s hearing. These are the investigation and hearing facts recorded by the Tribunal, not findings from an independent field inquiry by AKHB.
Source: Paras 1–18, pp. 3–8.
02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court
The Tribunal considered DGAP’s account of its efforts and the continuing absence of evidence. DGAP said it could not determine whether the product had been supplied by this respondent and, if so, whether the tax-rate benefit had been passed on. At the hearing it reported nil profiteering and requested closure, but that figure rested on an inability to establish the necessary facts.
The Tribunal also stated that the department should ascertain whether there had been bogus billing to S.R. Lifesciences or another registered firm, and that the jurisdictional Commissionerate could take action if so. This is a conditional investigation observation, not an adjudicated finding that bogus billing occurred.
Source: Paras 11–12, 16 and 18–20, pp. 6–9.
03 · Judicial decision and operative relief
The Tribunal concluded that no further proceedings could be sustained against the respondent and dropped the present case. Copies were directed to the respondent and concerned CGST/SGST Commissioners. The final order dated 12 November 2025 did not impose a refund, interest or penalty. It preserved the separate conditional billing inquiry described in paragraph 20.
Source: Paras 20–23, p. 9; caption and summary pp. 1–2.
04 · In favour of
Final evidential closure. Nil profiteering in the reported investigation is not equivalent to a verified finding that every relevant price reduction was passed on.
Source: Paras 18–23, pp. 8–9.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: Distinguish failure to establish a tax claim from affirmative proof of compliance. The record here could not establish the relevant supplies and pass-through because the supplier and essential records were unavailable despite repeated enquiries. The order is useful for understanding that evidentiary limit, not for endorsing non-participation as a compliance strategy.
Keep separate the closed Section 171 proceeding and the conditional direction to examine possible billing irregularities. No allegation of bogus billing should be presented as proved: paragraph 20 asks the department to ascertain the position and permits action only if warranted.
Preserve source chronology and scope. Paragraph 18 identifies a report dated 30 April 2025 and a supplementary report dated 12 November 2024, while the earlier narrative records the 2022 investigation and later attempts to obtain documents. This note does not reconstruct an unseen report history or claim that the preserved inquiry was subsequently pursued. The underlying correspondence, returns and visit records were not independently obtained.
Source: AKHB source-based analysis of paras 11–23, pp. 6–9.
Source and verification
Complete nine-page source text read; caption and operative pages visually checked. · Individual hosted copy of the original judgment
Complete nine-page official GSTAT order. Underlying DGAP reports, correspondence, returns, spot-visit records and any later billing investigation 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.
Complete source text read; critical caption/operative visuals checked.
No fresh monetary award or claim of subsequently verified compliance.
Statutory scope
Historical source-based explanation of the evidentiary closure and preserved conditional inquiry; no finding on liability in any separate proceeding.
Later treatment and present applicability
Bounded exact-case/party and appeal, recall or correction searches on 17 October 2026 identified no later primary order affecting this disposal. This is not exhaustive docket clearance or a check of all separate investigations.
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.