Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. IJM Raintree Park Pvt. Ltd. and another

01 · Facts of the case and issues

A buyer complained that IJM Raintree Park had not passed ITC benefit for Flat Willows 1040 in Raintree Park Dwarka Krishna Phase II. He had booked in June 2015, paid instalments before and after GST, later shifted to Willows 942 and entered a sale deed in August 2020. IJM (India) Infrastructure was the engineering, procurement and construction contractor and is the second named respondent in the administrative form.

An initial DGAP report dated 23 March 2020 was followed by NAA’s 29 August 2022 reinvestigation direction concerning the contractor and a 27 February 2023 report. Paragraph 7 records a proposed Rs. 2,96,93,802 for 134 buyers. After the Reckitt Benckiser methodology ruling and CCI reinvestigation, the 8 January 2025 report instead found no additional benefit for the investigated 1 July 2017–31 March 2024 period.

The accepted comparison uses pre-GST purchase value of Rs. 62,40,70,289 and service-tax credit of Rs. 4,25,44,214, producing 6.81%, against post-GST purchase value of Rs. 102,62,63,862 and net ITC of Rs. 3,42,78,735, producing 3.34%. The printed difference is negative 3.47 percentage points. The net ITC equals Rs. 18,47,19,844 less the Rs. 15,04,41,109 reversal taken from GSTR-9.

The complainant disputed the new methodology, comparison of pre-GST service credit with GST credit, project-wide reversal and the exclusion of units, contractor ITC flow, the evidentiary checks and alleged invoice admissions. The developer and DGAP defended the revised comparison. The developer also claimed Rs. 62,53,926 of earlier benefits, but the report expressly did not verify that whole claim once it found no additional project benefit.

Source: Complaint and report history: paragraphs 1–12, physical pp. 2–5. Buyer and developer submissions: paragraphs 15–16, pp. 5–10. Revised comparative figures: paragraph 11, p. 4, and paragraph 33, pp. 20–21. DGAP clarification: paragraphs 17–18, pp. 10–11.

02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court

After identifying the actual dispute, GSTAT reproduced Reckitt paragraphs 124 and 126–129 and held that the change from credit/turnover to credit/purchase comparison was appropriate on this record. Its reasons concern project savings and non-uniform construction activity; the absence of a universal formula did not itself prove absence of benefit. The paragraph 30 scenario table is counsel’s summary and must be read with the fuller quoted conditions, including completed construction and full upfront payment where relevant. Paragraphs 34 and 62 expressly reject the methodology and changed-report objections.

Paragraphs 35–39 separately accept the complainant’s Rs. 64,257 book adjustment, supported by a reproduced ledger and his email confirmation. The ledger heading uses IJM Lingamaneni Township Pvt. Ltd.–Phase II; the note does not infer an independently verified corporate succession from that heading. Paragraph 38 refers to a Rs. 61,08,682 claim for ninety buyers, of whom eight confirmed receipt. That is not confirmation by all ninety or independent verification of the different Rs. 62,53,926 aggregate claim.

On the contractor objection, paragraphs 41–44 find that DGAP examined relevant contractor records and that the developer sold the units. The Tribunal accepted the stated absence of an active contractor role in the developer’s incremental-benefit accrual on those facts. This does not establish that EPC contractors generally fall outside Section 171 or that all contractor credit can be ignored.

Paragraphs 45–48 accept coverage of 107 net pre-OC units with 1,44,158 square feet. The 632-unit project is described as 132 pre-OC bookings less twenty-five cancellations, four hundred post-OC bookings and one hundred unsold units. Thus the excluded 525 comprise different categories; the note does not call all of them completed post-OC sales. The source invokes Schedule III paragraph 5 with Schedule II paragraph 5(b), including the whole-consideration and completion/first-occupation conditions, rather than an unconditional certificate-only exemption.

Paragraphs 55–58 accept net credit after reversal and project-wide purchase values. There is an unresolved scope tension: paragraph 46 says the ratio was computed only for the 107 units, whereas paragraph 57 approves purchase value for the entire project. No allocation schedule is appended to reconcile those statements. Paragraph 53 calls Rs. 3,42,78,735 a reversal figure although the tables and subtraction identify it as net ITC; it also places the OC in FY 2019–20 despite the 30 March 2019 date in paragraph 16(a). Paragraph 66 contrasts Rs. 18,47,19,844 with reversal figures although paragraph 53 describes it as credit availed. These source descriptions are not silently normalised.

On verification, paragraphs 66–67 cite DGAP’s use of Rs. 4,25,44,214 service credit rather than the CA’s lower Rs. 3,75,80,345, and the GSTR-9 reversal rather than other supplied figures. This is GSTAT’s evidence appraisal, not independent certification of the returns by AKHB. Paragraph 51 rejects the alleged invoice declaration after inspecting the produced 29 January 2018 invoice; its adverse observation about the complainant is attributed to the Tribunal without a new misconduct allegation.

Historical figures and chronology also vary. Paragraph 27 prints 9.7% and Rs. 2,88,00,435 in the objection, while paragraphs 15(vii)/59 print 9.07%. Paragraph 31 gives Rs. 2,96,93,802 gross, less Rs. 27,29,748, leaving Rs. 2,69,64,054, with Rs. 2,88,435 proposed for the complainant. None is the operative 2026 liability. Paragraph 7 refers to the 2023 report pending before NAA despite paragraph 8 recording NAA’s November 2022 cessation. The note preserves these discrepancies and does not reconstruct missing reports.

Source: Methodology: paragraphs 25–34, physical pp. 14–21, and 59–62, p. 28. Individual adjustment: paragraphs 35–39, pp. 21–24. Contractor: paragraphs 40–44, pp. 24–25. Unit scope and schedules: paragraphs 45–48, pp. 25–26. Invoice finding: paragraphs 49–51, p. 26. Reversal and verification: paragraphs 52–67, pp. 26–29. Historical variants: paragraphs 7–8, 15(vii), 27, 31 and 59, pp. 3–6, 14, 19, 28.

03 · Judicial decision and operative relief

GSTAT rejected the complainant’s objections and accepted DGAP’s report dated 8 January 2025. Read with paragraphs 33–34, 62 and 68, the result is no Section 171 contravention on the accepted negative-benefit comparison and the Tribunal’s developed reasons.

No recipient refund, developer refund, Consumer Welfare Fund deposit, interest or penalty is ordered. The Rs. 64,257 adjustment is a historical benefit found already received, not a new payment direction. Earlier proposed principal amounts and claimed aggregate credits are not converted into operative awards. Reproduction of Section 171(3A) and its thirty-day proviso creates no penalty or deadline in this no-contravention order.

The judgment is to be sent to the jurisdictional SGST/CGST Commissioner for information and necessary action, if any, and is pronounced in open court. It states no numerical payment or compliance-report deadline. The typed date and visible digital signature are 1 April 2026. The limited no-contravention result does not independently validate every ledger, tax return, contractor transaction or printed chronology.

Source: No-contravention rationale: paragraphs 33–34, physical pp. 20–21, and paragraphs 62/68, pp. 28–30. Exact final order: paragraphs 69–72, p. 30. Historical adjustment: paragraphs 35–39, pp. 21–24; reproduced penalty background: paragraph 22, pp. 11–13.

04 · In favour of

Final substantive no-contravention judgment after contested, issue-specific reasoning. The final report acceptance and Closure Report label are supported by the Tribunal’s own analysis, rather than only the complainant’s prior adjustment or an unexplained closure.

Source: Developed findings: paragraphs 28–68, physical pp. 15–30; operative rejection and acceptance: paragraphs 69–72, p. 30.