Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, Anti-Profiteering Division · GST · AKHB case note
Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd.
NAPA/118/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.
Eligible homebuyers on the payment and interest directions; quantified liability was accepted by undertaking.
01 · Facts of the case and issues
The respondent stated that it was ready to pay the DGAP-calculated ₹67,02,147 to resolve the matter, and requested three months because payment was to be distributed to numerous homebuyers. DGAP did not object. The short order does not identify the project, number of eligible buyers, investigation period or underlying calculation.
Source: Paras 4–5, pp. 2–3.
02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court
The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report on the respondent’s undertaking and converted that undertaking into a direction to pay eligible homebuyers. On interest, counsel proposed reference to the last payment made by each buyer. The operative direction instead states liability for interest as applicable under Rule 133(3) of the CGST Rules 2017. The note must distinguish counsel’s proposed basis from the Tribunal’s actual direction.
Source: Paras 6–8, p. 3.
03 · Judicial decision and operative relief
The respondent was directed to pay ₹67,02,147 to eligible homebuyers within three months from the order dated 9 January 2026, together with interest as applicable under Rule 133(3). It was to submit a compliance report after that period to the concerned jurisdictional Commissioner. The matter was disposed of. No independent evidence of payment or compliance has been obtained.
Source: Paras 6–10 and date line, p. 3.
04 · In favour of
Final undertaking-based payment order. The three-month direction is historical and its performance remains unverified.
Source: Paras 6–10, p. 3.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: Record the amount, eligible recipients, operative interest provision, payment period and compliance recipient separately. The source does not contain the project-level computation or buyer schedule, so those details should not be invented from the aggregate. The undertaking resolves this proceeding without providing a universally applicable computation method.
Do not convert counsel’s last-payment proposal into a judicially fixed interest start date. The operative provision refers to Rule 133(3); the short text does not print a rate or individual start/end dates. Obtain the underlying report and applicable rule before calculating a buyer’s interest.
The order and caption date are 9 January 2026. The administrative summary and digital signatures carry 12 January; these later processing dates are not substituted for the pronounced order date.
Source: AKHB analysis of paras 4–10 and administrative date 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.