Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd.

01 · Facts of the case and issues

Three homebuyers complained that Ireo Grace Realtech had not passed on additional ITC through reduced construction prices after GST commenced in relation to The Corridors, Sector 67A, Gurgaon. An initial DGAP report dated 21 February 2019 found contravention. The matter went through further investigation under Rule 133(4), a report dated 12 February 2020 and later CCI reconsideration. Following the Delhi High Court’s judgment dated 29 January 2024, CCI directed reinvestigation on 7 May 2024.

The report before GSTAT was dated 28 October 2024. The issue was whether its revised no-additional-benefit conclusion should be accepted. The short final order does not identify a complete investigation start/end period or reproduce a quantified earlier demand; those details are not supplied by inference.

Source: Paragraphs 1–5, physical pp. 2–4.

02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court

DGAP reported an ITC-to-purchase-value ratio of 4.66% before GST and 4.54% after GST, a decline of 0.12 percentage points. It concluded that no additional ITC benefit accrued. The Tribunal recorded notice, additional opportunities and the absence of the applicants and respondent at the 10 February 2026 hearing, then accepted the report and expressly held that Section 171 had not been contravened.

Paragraph 6 also reports that one applicant informed the Tribunal of an amicable settlement by an email dated 17 October 2026. That date is later than both the order’s 11 February 2026 date and the 13 October 2026 review date. It is an unresolved internal inconsistency in the official source. The note does not change it to another year or treat it as reliable proof of when a settlement occurred.

The operative no-contravention finding is clear, but the recorded settlement chronology requires confirmation from the underlying record before reliance. This is neither a general rule that private settlements end statutory proceedings nor a ruling clearing other IREO entities or projects. The earlier report’s adverse finding is history and must not be presented as the GSTAT outcome.

Source: Ratios: paragraph 5, physical pp. 3–4. Notice, hearing and inconsistent email date: paragraph 6, physical p. 4. Holding: paragraphs 7–8, physical p. 4.

03 · Judicial decision and operative relief

The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report dated 28 October 2024 and held that there was no contravention of Section 171. It disposed of the proceedings and directed supply of the order to the applicants, respondent and concerned Commissionerate. No payment, interest or penalty was ordered. The form, closing date and digital-signature date identify 11 February 2026.

Source: Paragraphs 7–10 and date/signature block, physical p. 4; form, physical pp. 1–2.

04 · In favour of

Final reasoned no-contravention disposal based on acceptance of the revised DGAP report, with a disclosed source-date inconsistency. It is not a general industry exemption or clearance of other IREO companies.

Source: Paragraphs 5–8, physical pp. 3–4.