Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, Anti-Profiteering Division · GST · AKHB case note
Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. BPTP Ltd.
NAPA/67/PB/2025
No neutral or reporter citation printed in the identified official order. ·
Final settlement-linked closure, not a fresh quantified merits calculation.
BPTP on closure of the identified complaints following the recorded settlement and report acceptance.
01 · Facts of the case and issues
Two complainants raised construction-service profiteering grievances concerning Discovery Park. Following the Reckitt Benckiser litigation, CCI directed reinvestigation by a letter dated 21 March 2024. DGAP submitted its final report on 22 December 2025 and recorded that the complainants had withdrawn their complaints after amicable settlement, supported by withdrawal letters and an annexure to its report.
Source: Unnumbered reasoned order, physical pp. 3–4; administrative date field p. 2.
02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court
The order records DGAP’s conclusion that Section 171 had not been contravened. At the final hearing, emails confirming mutual settlement and absence of further grievance were placed before the Tribunal. The published reasons contain no project-wide numeric calculation or settlement amount.
Source: Unnumbered reasoned order, physical pp. 3–4; administrative date field p. 2.
03 · Judicial decision and operative relief
The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report and closed the matter by its order dated 13 January 2026. No fresh refund, interest or penalty is ordered. The administrative summary and signature date of 15 January are not substituted for the order date.
Source: Unnumbered reasoned order, physical pp. 3–4; administrative date field p. 2.
04 · In favour of
Final settlement-linked closure, not a fresh quantified merits calculation.
Source: Unnumbered reasoned order, physical pp. 3–4; administrative date field p. 2.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: Identify the scope of the actual closure. The Tribunal considered the report and the complainants’ recorded settlement and withdrawal; this does not establish a universal rule that private withdrawal cancels an otherwise proved statutory liability. The underlying report, annexure, settlement terms and payment records were not independently obtained. Do not invent a project-wide quantification or treat this short disposition as an independent audit of every buyer account.
Source: AKHB source-based analysis of unnumbered reasoned order, physical pp. 3–4; administrative date field p. 2.
Source and verification
Complete 4-page original read and visually checked. · Individual hosted copy of the original judgment
Complete 4-page official GSTAT order. Underlying reports and documents mentioned in the reasons 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.
All source pages text/visual checked.
No source text or existing entry altered.
Statutory scope
Historical source-based explanation of this final disposition; no independent statement of current tax law.
Later treatment and present applicability
Related litigation identified: the Delhi High Court’s batch order dated 15 October 2026 includes BPTP W.P.(C)990/2021. It lists the batch for 7 January 2027 and continues any existing interim order until then. The identified batch order does not establish that the older writ concerns Discovery Park NAPA/67/PB/2025 or stays this 13 January 2026 GSTAT closure. Scope and effect of any interim protection on this specific disposal remain unverified. Do not infer either a stay of this order or absence of litigation.
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.