Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Raja Housing Limited

01 · Facts of the case and issues

A purchaser in Raja Ritz Avenue Phase-I complained that the developer’s receipt did not separately reflect the GST component paid. The Karnataka State Screening Committee considered investigation, enforcement and audit material. The Tribunal recorded that the project commenced before 1 April 2019 and that the developer continued under the old tax scheme, described in the source as 12% with land exemption and ITC. The record said customers were charged 5%, while the developer bore the differential tax burden. These are findings recited from the case record, not a general statement of current real-estate GST rates.

Sale deeds, payment vouchers, customer-wise ledgers and audit material were examined. The source also records separate invoice-related enforcement proceedings and DRC-01 dated 24 February 2025 referring to ₹10,35,80,038, and total tax discharged of ₹17,01,94,057. These amounts are not anti-profiteering awards made by this judgment.

Source: Physical p. 3, unnumbered factual paragraphs; p. 4, first three paragraphs.

02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court

The issue was whether this receipt/invoicing grievance and the investigated financial record established profiteering. The Tribunal examined the Karnataka screening minutes and the underlying findings described in them. The record found no substantiated tax evasion on the issue investigated and showed the consideration, collections and tax discharge in the financial material.

The original complainant was invited to object to the screening findings, filed no written objections, and was nevertheless heard virtually. The Tribunal found no illegality or irregularity in the screening minutes and concluded that no profiteering had occurred on this record. The conclusion rests on the facts and verification recited in this case; it does not license defective invoicing.

Source: Physical p. 3, screening and audit discussion; p. 4, paragraphs beginning “Considering the statement”, “In that view” and “Today”.

03 · Judicial decision and operative relief

The Tribunal found no profiteering, dropped the allegation against Raja Housing Limited and closed the proceedings. The signed reasoned order is dated 8 January 2026. The summary/signature page and digital signature carry 9 January 2026; the judgment is indexed by its stated decision date of 8 January.

The operative text does not order a buyer refund, Consumer Welfare Fund deposit, interest or penalty. Nor does it set aside, quantify relief against or finally adjudicate the separate DRC-01 invoice-enforcement matter described in the background.

Source: Physical p. 4, final two substantive paragraphs and date line; p. 1, date of order; p. 2, summary date; p. 4 digital signature.

04 · In favour of

Final case-specific no-profiteering determination accepting the state screening record after hearing the original complainant. The administrative “Closure Report” and “Confirmed” labels must be read with the reasoned operative conclusion.

Source: Physical pp. 1–2 summary and p. 4 operative conclusion.