Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Ahmedabad East Infrastructure LLP

01 · Facts of the case and issues

The complaint was made by Govindbhai A. Patel, Ramlila Govindbhai Patel and Gunjan Govindbhai Patel concerning the property described as Flat 120 in Arvind Uplands I. The source records a Standing Committee meeting on 28 May 2025 and DGAP’s report dated 22 October 2025 for the period 1 July 2017–31 May 2025. The wrapper’s case-reference date is 31 August 2021. The PDF does not explain the relationship between those dates or resolve its wrapper case number NAPA/233/PB/2025 and body caption NAPA/102/PB/2025.

The report covers 91 of 180 villas: 89 were reportedly constructed, booked and handed over after GST, while the other 91 were constructed or booked before GST. Paragraph 3(e) gives the covered area as 23,271 square metres, but Table B labels the same number as square feet. That mismatch is not converted into a verified area measurement. The source records the old effective 12% GST scheme with ITC continuing after April 2019.

DGAP accepted certified gross ITC of Rs. 13,79,45,097 less recorded reversals of Rs. 5,60,77,652, leaving net ITC of Rs. 8,18,67,445. Table A compares this with post-GST purchases of Rs. 82,28,13,508 and pre-GST service-tax credit of Rs. 3,65,50,362 on purchases of Rs. 42,28,25,494. The displayed ratios are 8.64% and 9.95%, a 1.31% increase. Table B prints base profiteering of Rs. 1,07,78,857 and GST of Rs. 12,93,463, totaling Rs. 1,20,72,320.

On 7 January 2026 the developer agreed to pay the report’s total to the respective buyers to bring the litigation to an end. It was represented at the hearing, while the original complainants did not appear. The admission is reported as such, without inventing a contested rejection of the quantum calculation.

Source: Conflicting captions and wrapper date: physical pp. 1–2. Complaint/referral: paragraphs 1–2, pp. 3–4. Investigation, villas, reversals and Tables A/B: paragraphs 3(a)–3(h), pp. 4–9. Admission and hearings: paragraphs 5–7, p. 10.

02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court

The Tribunal framed benefit, restitution/interest and penalty issues. It adopted the report and the developer’s acceptance, finding that the additional benefit remained unpaid. The fact-specific exclusion of the 89 wholly post-GST villas is part of that adopted report; the order does not establish that every buyer who transacts after GST is universally outside Section 171. Nor does DGAP’s recorded acceptance of certified reversals independently validate every project’s Rule 42 reversal.

Paragraphs 11–12 independently explain the statutory obligation to pass on benefits at supply, describe recipient interest under Rule 133(3)(b) as mandatory and invoke Reckitt Benckiser paragraph 153. The rule quoted there measures interest from collection of the higher amount until return. However, the operative paragraph 13 and administrative summary expressly choose the date of collection of the last instalment from the buyers. That specific starting point is preserved, rather than silently replaced with every excess collection date. The PDF gives no separate explanation for the divergence; professional use requires the operative text and any subsequent clarification.

Paragraph 14 states that penalty under Section 171(3A) is leviable because the stated contravention period spans 1 July 2017–31 May 2025, including time after commencement on 1 January 2020. It reproduces the ten-percent provision and the exception for deposit within thirty days. It does not isolate the post-2020 amount, assess a rupee penalty or prove satisfaction or failure of the proviso. The note therefore does not calculate ten percent on the undivided project total.

Several material source inconsistencies remain. Paragraph 3(c) says pre-GST service-tax credit was unavailable, whereas Table A uses Rs. 3,65,50,362 of such credit. Paragraph 9 prints the base as Rs. 1,07,78,887, thirty rupees above Table B’s Rs. 1,07,78,857, while retaining the same GST and gross total. The consistent operative total is Rs. 1,20,72,320; no editorial recomputation changes it. The area-unit and caption conflicts are also preserved. The body lists a 2 March 2026 hearing while the wrapper lists 12 March 2026, so the two records are not merged into a certified hearing chronology.

Source: Own adoption and unpaid benefit: paragraphs 8–10, physical pp. 10–12. Interest reasoning and direction: paragraphs 11–13, pp. 12–14, and summary p. 2. Penalty: paragraph 14, p. 14. Credit, amount and hearing differences: paragraph 3(c), p. 5; Table A, p. 7; Table B, p. 9; paragraphs 7 and 9, pp. 10–11; wrapper p. 2.

03 · Judicial decision and operative relief

The Tribunal directed refund of Rs. 1,20,72,320, inclusive of the recorded GST component, to eligible buyers identified in Annexure 11 to the DGAP report. The adopted investigation covers 91 villas, but the complete recipient schedule is not appended and the villa count is not substituted for a verified individual payee count. Interest is 18% per annum, expressly starting from collection of each buyer’s last instalment; the Rule 133(3)(b) reasoning and quotation provide the return-of-amount endpoint. The note preserves the operative starting point despite its difference from the general rule quotation.

Compliance is to be reported to the jurisdictional Commissioner, with intimation to DGAP, within two months from the order date. This is the express reporting timetable, distinct from the thirty-day penalty proviso; paragraph 13 does not separately fix a numerical refund deadline. Penalty applicability is stated subject to the reproduced statutory provision, without an assessed rupee sum. No Consumer Welfare Fund payment is ordered.

The matter is disposed of and pronounced in open court. The typed order and visible digital-signature date are both 2 April 2026. The order establishes outstanding liability and directions, not proof of payment or completion of reporting.

Source: Operative paragraph 13, physical pp. 13–14; penalty paragraph 14, p. 14; communication/disposal/pronouncement paragraphs 15–17, pp. 14–15. Administrative summary, p. 2.

04 · In favour of

Final substantive liability and remedy determination on admitted quantum. The Tribunal explains the interest obligation and temporal penalty consequences and directs payment still outstanding. Its reasons support this editorial selection beyond the developer’s wish to close litigation, while the actual degree of contest and unresolved source inconsistencies are disclosed.

Source: Paragraphs 6 and 8–14, physical pp. 10–14.