Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Nahar Homes LLP

01 · Facts of the case and issues

The complaint concerned Unit A1-801 in F Residences, Pune. Following the original 10 November 2021 report and CCI’s 20 March 2024 reinvestigation direction, DGAP submitted a revised report on 3 June 2025. The source identifies 29 January 2020 as the occupancy-certificate cutoff, but Table B labels its period July 2017 to March 2020. Both descriptions remain unresolved.

Of 360 units, the investigation excluded 35 post-occupancy sales and 72 post-GST bookings whose agreements said ITC benefit was already included in the price. It examined 253 pre-GST bookings. Those exclusions describe this investigation; the agreement clause is not treated as a universally effective waiver of Section 171 rights.

Source: Paragraphs 1–4.6, physical pp. 2–5; Table B, physical p. 7; paragraph 12, physical pp. 10–11.

02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court

DGAP recorded credit-to-purchase ratios of 5.08% before GST and 12.28% afterwards, a 7.20 percentage-point increase. Its computation stated Rs. 4,65,07,296 base benefit plus Rs. 55,80,876 GST, totaling Rs. 5,20,88,172. The intermediate savings/per-area figures use displayed rounded ratios and do not provide a fully reproducible standalone calculation; the note does not create a replacement assessment.

Table C reports Rs. 6,63,41,543 passed to 253 buyers and identifies excess benefit for 240 of them, including the withdrawn complainant. For the remaining 13, it prints Rs. 27,64,716 entitlement and Rs. 21,84,437 passed on, with a stated balance of Rs. 5,80,280. The components subtract to Rs. 5,80,279; the 239-buyer row also has a one-rupee difference. Paragraph 10 attributes the aggregate Rs. 6,63,41,543 to 240 buyers although Table C uses 253. No corrected liability or cross-buyer netting is inferred.

At the final hearing the respondent relied on its 22 January 2026 reply, unconditionally accepting the report and expressing willingness to pay the balance with interest. GSTAT adopted the residual Rs. 5,80,280 despite the project-level excess benefit. A promise to pay is not evidence of actual payment.

Source: Ratios and computation: paragraphs 5–5.3, physical pp. 6–8. Category table and discrepancies: paragraphs 5.4–5.5, physical pp. 8–9, and paragraph 10, physical p. 10. Acceptance: paragraph 9, physical pp. 9–10.

03 · Judicial decision and operative relief

GSTAT directed Rs. 5,80,280 to the 13 eligible buyers with applicable Rule 133(3)(b) interest within 30 days. A compliance report to the jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner, with intimation to DGAP, was required within two months. The operative paragraph does not expressly specify a receipt-based or other trigger; no concrete deadline is invented. Annexure 15 identifying the 13 buyers is not appended to the eleven-page order. Later payment, interest computation and report filing remain unverified.

Paragraph 12 states that Section 171(3A) commenced on 1 January 2020 and holds penalty leviable for a period it describes as 1 July 2017 to 29 January 2020. It quotes both the 10% provision and the exception for deposit within 30 days of the order. No penalty amount or pre/post-commencement allocation is calculated, and satisfaction of the exception is not found. The report was accepted and the case disposed of; the Closure Report label does not extinguish these liabilities.

Source: Paragraphs 10–15 and date/signatures, physical pp. 10–11; buyer-schedule reference in Table C, physical p. 8; form, physical p. 2.

04 · In favour of

Final recipient-payment determination on the accepted report, with interest/reporting and conditional penalty reasoning. Source arithmetic, aggregate allocation and investigation-period inconsistencies remain unresolved.

Source: Paragraphs 10–13, physical pp. 10–11.