Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, Anti-Profiteering Division · GST · AKHB case note
Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Diya Greencity Pvt. Ltd. (Project Diya Greencity)
NAPA/91/PB/2025
No neutral or reporter citation printed in the identified official order. ·
Final undertaking-based disposal accepting the DGAP report; no contested independent recalculation in the short reasoned order.
The 21 identified homebuyers on the accepted undertaking; actual distribution is unverified.
01 · Facts of the case and issues
DGAP investigated the Diya Greencity project following a Standing Committee reference. The order records a total benefit of ₹10,49,43,145 plus 8% GST of ₹83,95,452, totalling ₹11,33,38,597. It also records benefit already passed to 1,177 buyers of ₹13,19,64,459, but no benefit passed to 21 other buyers, whose outstanding benefit was ₹20,21,440. The underlying buyer schedule is not reproduced.
Source: Para 5, p. 3.
02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court
The respondent unconditionally accepted the DGAP findings to avoid further litigation and undertook to pass ₹20,21,440 to the 21 homebuyers. On that undertaking, the Tribunal found that no further dispute survived and accepted the report. The recorded aggregate benefit already passed exceeds the recorded project total, yet the order retains a buyer-specific unpaid amount. The source does not provide sufficient workings to reconcile the aggregate or to infer that overpayment to one buyer discharges another buyer’s entitlement.
Source: Paras 5–7 and operative order, p. 3.
03 · Judicial decision and operative relief
The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report dated 7 November 2025 in view of the undertaking, concluded the proceedings and directed copies to the respondent and the concerned CGST/SGST Commissioner for necessary action and compliance. The accepted undertaking concerns ₹20,21,440 for 21 homebuyers. The reasoned page does not set a payment deadline or independently specify an interest rate, period or calculation.
Source: Para 6 and operative order, p. 3.
04 · In favour of
Final disposal accepting a report and payment undertaking. The administrative order-type field mentions return with interest, but the reasoned operative text does not quantify or explain interest.
Source: Summary p. 2; para 6 and operative order p. 3.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: Maintain buyer-wise benefit records instead of concluding that an aggregate excess credit eliminates every remaining buyer claim. In this order, an unpaid amount for 21 buyers survives despite the larger aggregate recorded as passed to other buyers. Without the report and beneficiary schedule, this note cannot independently reconcile those totals or assign an equal per-buyer amount.
Preserve the distinction between an undertaking accepted by the Tribunal and verified performance. No payment receipt or compliance finding has been obtained. Do not invent a deadline or a numerical interest direction from the summary category. The administrative field says return with interest, while the reasoned order accepts the undertaking without specifying interest terms.
Use 17 December 2025, the date printed on the order and caption. The summary processing and digital signatures dated 18 December are separately identifiable.
Source: AKHB analysis of paras 5–7 and administrative/operative fields, pp. 1–3.
Source and verification
Complete three-page official source read and visually checked. · Individual hosted copy of the original judgment
Complete three-page official order, including administrative summary. Underlying DGAP report, buyer-wise allocation and payment/compliance records 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.
Source identity/bytes and nonempty normalized full text compared with202 published baseline plus newly integrated Legacy,203 records total.
Three scanned originals do not provide normalized-text duplicate evidence.
Statutory scope
Historical explanation of the identified final disposal; no independent statutory consolidation or calculation of buyer-specific liability.
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 decision. This is not exhaustive docket clearance or proof of compliance.
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.