Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, Anti-Profiteering Division · GST · AKHB case note
Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Bollineni Developers Ltd.
NAPA/110/PB/2025
No neutral or reporter citation printed in the identified official order. ·
Final procedural report-acceptance disposal; underlying merits are not reproduced.
Not determinable on the published reasons: the report is accepted and the matter disposed of, but the report’s substantive outcome is not reproduced.
01 · Facts of the case and issues
The Tribunal recorded that the complainant had been sent a virtual-hearing link pursuant to the 16 December 2025 order and that the email had been received. The complainant did not appear despite the opportunities recorded in the order. The departmental representative stated that sufficient opportunities had been given.
Source: Paragraphs 1–9, physical p. 3; caption p. 1.
02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court
The Tribunal relied on that non-participation to accept the DGAP report dated 15 April 2025. The published reasoned page does not reproduce the report’s substantive conclusion, project details, investigation period or quantum. It therefore does not support an invented finding of a specific benefit or a general compliance clearance.
Source: Paragraphs 1–9, physical p. 3; caption p. 1.
03 · Judicial decision and operative relief
The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report dated 15 April 2025 and disposed of the matter on 16 January 2026. The short operative text contains no fresh quantified refund, interest or penalty direction.
Source: Paragraphs 1–9, physical p. 3; caption p. 1.
04 · In favour of
Final procedural report-acceptance disposal; underlying merits are not reproduced.
Source: Paragraphs 1–9, physical p. 3; caption p. 1.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: Preserve the distinction between a final procedural disposition and a reasoned tax-benefit computation. This order is final for the proceeding, but its published reasons centre on notice and non-participation. Obtain the accepted report before attributing substantive conclusions not reproduced here.
The original and official cause lists use NAPA/110/PB/2025. An official listing for the separate Pyramid Infratech case also prints 110, but Pyramid’s original uses 119. Different parties, dates and original texts should remain separate; the listing error does not make this a duplicate.
Source: AKHB source-based analysis of paragraphs 1–9, physical p. 3; caption p. 1.
Source and verification
Complete 3-page original read and visually checked. · Individual hosted copy of the original judgment
Complete 3-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
Bounded exact-party/case/date and recall or appeal searches on 17 October 2026 identified no later primary order affecting this disposition. This is not exhaustive docket clearance or verification 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.