Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Riddhi Siddhi Construction

01 · Facts of the case and issues

A homebuyer complained that Riddhi Siddhi Construction had not passed on additional input tax credit after GST commenced through a commensurate reduction in the price of Unit 605 in F Residences Malad, Mumbai. The Standing Committee considered the complaint on 3 August 2022 and referred it for investigation under Rule 129.

DGAP’s report dated 9 January 2025 concluded that no additional ITC benefit had accrued after GST, referring to the Delhi High Court’s 29 January 2024 judgment in Reckitt Benckiser. After notice dated 11 November 2025, the complainant emailed on 18 November 2025 that the GST matter had been settled at possession and that he had no objection to the report. The question before GSTAT was whether to accept that investigated no-contravention conclusion.

Source: Unnumbered reasons beginning on physical p. 2 and continuing on physical p. 3; complaint, reference, report and email recitals.

02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court

The Tribunal expressly considered the DGAP findings, the respondent’s documents and the applicant’s written consent, then accepted the report. Neither private party appeared at the 9 January 2026 hearing; the DGAP representative did. The closure therefore rests on adoption of the substantive no-benefit finding together with the written response, rather than simply on absence at the hearing.

The short order does not reproduce the project’s comparative ITC ratios, underlying ledgers, investigation start/end dates, settlement amount or settlement documents. Those details cannot be supplied from the bare statement that the matter was settled. Its reference to the High Court methodology is reported background, not a fresh, detailed GSTAT computation.

The result is confined to the complaint and investigated project. It is not a general rule that a private settlement automatically extinguishes statutory anti-profiteering obligations or that the developer’s other projects are cleared.

Source: Unnumbered investigation and email recitals, physical p. 3; Tribunal consideration and acceptance, physical p. 4.

03 · Judicial decision and operative relief

GSTAT accepted the DGAP report dated 9 January 2025 recording no contravention of Section 171 and closed the proceedings. Copies were to be sent to the respondent, applicant and jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner, Mumbai. The order was pronounced and dated 9 January 2026.

No quantified refund, fund deposit, interest or penalty was directed. The order does not adjudicate or quantify an independent settlement-payment obligation, and the actual terms or performance of the reported settlement have not been verified.

Source: Unnumbered operative concluding passage and signature/date block, physical p. 4; administrative summary, physical p. 2.

04 · In favour of

Final project-specific no-contravention disposal, with the complainant’s written no-objection taken into account. No universal settlement exemption or quantified payment relief is inferred.

Source: Unnumbered concluding reasons and operative passage, physical p. 4.