Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, Anti-Profiteering Division · GST · AKHB case note
Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Umang Realtech Private Ltd.
NAPA/143/PB/2025
No neutral or reporter citation printed in the identified official order. ·
Final recorded-benefit-satisfaction disposal accepting the DGAP report and closing the complaint; no fresh monetary award.
Umang Realtech on closure after the recorded benefit-satisfaction confirmation; the note does not independently certify all underlying payments.
01 · Facts of the case and issues
The flat buyers’ association complained on 8 January 2019 about construction services in Winter Hills-77, Gurgaon. The Standing Committee referred the matter to DGAP. The report dated 13 December 2024 recorded a base benefit of ₹4,16,85,896 plus 12% GST of ₹50,02,308, totalling ₹4,66,88,204. It also addressed benefits already passed and concluded that no remaining ITC benefit appeared due.
After notice seeking clarification, the association’s general secretary confirmed in a letter dated 27 December 2025, received by email the next day, that the dispute had been settled through the interim resolution professional and that appropriate GST benefits had been allowed under an MoU dated 5 October 2019 at possession. A copy of the MoU was taken on record.
Source: Physical pp. 3–4, unnumbered factual paragraphs.
02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court
The Tribunal considered the DGAP report, the association’s confirmation and the MoU. After hearing the departmental representative and considering the documents, it was satisfied regarding the settlement of the benefit pass-through dispute. The recorded quantified benefit should be read with the recorded satisfaction of that benefit, rather than presented as a new amount still payable. The original does not reproduce a buyer-by-buyer calculation or payment schedule.
Source: Physical pp. 3–4, reasoned order.
03 · Judicial decision and operative relief
The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report and closed the matter on 16 January 2026. It did not direct a fresh refund, interest calculation or penalty in the reasoned operative text. The administrative summary records that the complainant had received the ITC benefit.
Source: Physical p. 1, summary item 8; p. 4, concluding paragraphs and date.
04 · In favour of
Final closure based on the recorded settlement and confirmation of benefits. The ₹4,66,88,204 is a report figure, not a new operative recovery award.
Source: Physical pp. 3–4.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: Separate calculation of a tax benefit from evidence that it was passed to beneficiaries. Here, the report’s figure and its conclusion that no benefit remained due were considered alongside the association’s written confirmation and MoU. A reliable project record should retain the computation, buyer-wise allocation and actual payment or adjustment evidence.
Do not treat this as a general rule that a private settlement erases an established statutory obligation. The closure rests on the Tribunal’s recorded assessment of benefit satisfaction in this particular matter. The underlying MoU, insolvency documents and individual receipts were not independently obtained for this note.
The caption names Umang Realtech Private Ltd.; one passage describing possession refers to Umang Realtors Pvt. Ltd. This source variant is retained as a limitation, without asserting that the companies are legally identical. The source also dates a clarification notice 13 December 2025 while the summary hearing field lists 3 December; those are separately recorded events and are not silently merged.
Source: AKHB analysis of physical pp. 1 and 3–4.
Source and verification
Complete four-page official source read and visually checked. · Individual hosted copy of the original judgment
Complete four-page official order. Underlying DGAP report, MoU, association letter, insolvency documents and buyer payment 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.
Complete four-page text and visual review completed.
Caption and body entity variant explicitly preserved.
Statutory scope
Historical source-based explanation of the recorded satisfaction and closure; not a project-wide independent compliance audit.
Later treatment and present applicability
Related litigation identified: the Delhi High Court’s batch order dated 9 September 2026 included Umang Realtech’s W.P.(C) 8228/2024, called for issue charts and continued any existing interim orders until 15 October 2026. The case-specific order dated 15 October 2026 records that the petitioner sought permission to withdraw that writ petition; the Court permitted withdrawal of the petition (paragraphs 1–2). Neither order identifies NAPA/143/PB/2025 or the 16 January 2026 GSTAT closure. Withdrawal is not a merits affirmation of this GSTAT disposal. The precise relationship between the writ and this closure, and any other later treatment, remain unverified.
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.