Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Bengal Shapoorji Housing Development Pvt. Ltd.

01 · Facts of the case and issues

Vinod Kumar Jain complained about Flat K/28/1005 in Shukhobrishti–Spriha Phases 5 and 6. The Standing Committee referred the complaint after its 8 May 2024 meeting. DGAP’s report dated 25 March 2025 records an investigation beginning 1 April 2017, whereas Table B and the later contravention finding begin on 1 July 2017; both end on 30 September 2024. The report records continued use of the old effective 12% GST scheme with ITC, rather than the post-April 2019 no-ITC scheme.

The computation compares pre-GST credit of Rs. 7,07,53,315 on purchases of Rs. 85,76,15,936 with post-GST ITC of Rs. 3,38,64,834 on purchases of Rs. 24,18,91,674. The displayed ratios are 8.25% and 14.00%, with 5.75% additional benefit. Table B prints savings of Rs. 1,39,08,771, total saleable area of 16,01,387 square feet, Rs. 8.69 per square foot and sold area of 15,34,201 square feet. The report fixes base profiteering at Rs. 1,33,32,208 and GST at Rs. 15,99,865, totaling Rs. 1,49,32,073 for 1,525 eligible buyers.

The developer argued that WBHIDCO’s development agreement fixed prices, that input taxes exceeded the effective output rate and that accumulated unutilised credit gave no real financial benefit. DGAP defended the project-savings/area methodology by reference to Reckitt Benckiser. On 16 April 2026 the developer accepted the report’s findings but continued to object to adding GST. The complainant separately questioned the rate scheme and sought relief concerning other phases, excess taxes and charges, delayed possession, maintenance and parking. Those wider complaints must not be confused with the specific ITC award.

Source: Complaint and investigation: paragraphs 1–4(b), physical pp. 2–3. Tables A/B and 1,525 buyers: paragraphs 4(e)–4(g), pp. 4–6. Defences, DGAP response, wider complaints and later acceptance: paragraphs 7–12, pp. 6–9.

02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court

The Tribunal rejected the argument that only actually utilised ITC counts. Paragraph 15 treats available additional credit as reducing supply cost even if accumulated, and says that a fixed development-agreement price cannot override Section 171. Its reference to claiming an unutilised-credit refund is expressly conditional on admissibility under the Act and Rules. This is not an award of such a refund or a ruling that every construction-sector accumulation is refundable. The separately checked historical Section 54(3) and Notification 15/2017 restrictions reinforce the need to retain that condition; this note does not adjudicate an actual refund claim. Paragraphs 14–18 apply these propositions to the accepted project figures; the initial objections and later admission remain distinct stages.

The live GST objection is rejected in paragraphs 19–20. Although DGAP’s purchase-value calculation excludes GST, the developer collected GST-inclusive consideration from buyers. The Tribunal requires the corresponding tax component to be returned and relies on Reckitt paragraph 157. Paragraph 17 loosely refers to Rs. 15,99,865 as the profiteered amount; paragraphs 18–20 and the operative order identify it as the GST component, with Rs. 1,33,32,208 as base. It is not a second base award.

Paragraphs 21–22 apply Rule 133(3)(b) to require 18% interest from collection of the excess consideration to actual refund, citing Reckitt paragraph 153. Paragraph 23 states that Section 171(3A) is attracted because the stated contravention period includes time after 1 January 2020, and reproduces its ten-percent provision and thirty-day deposit proviso. It does not quantify a penalty, separate a post-2020 amount or establish whether the proviso was satisfied. The note does not infer a ten-percent assessment on the entire mixed-period principal.

The source computation is preserved with a caution. Dividing the printed savings by printed saleable area and multiplying by printed sold area gives approximately Rs. 1,33,25,230, rather than the printed base Rs. 1,33,32,208. Multiplying only the rounded Rs. 8.69 rate by the sold area gives approximately Rs. 1,33,32,207. The full working is absent; neither calculation silently replaces the adjudged amount. The base, GST and final total themselves add correctly.

The order records the complainant’s additional grievances and request for other phases, but its reasoning and direction do not separately determine every requested compensation, charge refund or phase extension. Nor does the recorded old-scheme premise independently prove the developer’s election documentation or resolve every affordable-housing classification objection.

Source: Substantive ITC and fixed-price analysis: paragraphs 14–18, physical pp. 10–11. GST and interest: paragraphs 19–22, pp. 11–13. Penalty: paragraph 23, p. 13. Calculation: Table B, p. 5. Wider submissions: paragraphs 9 and 11, pp. 7–9; final scope: paragraph 24, p. 14.

03 · Judicial decision and operative relief

The Tribunal directed the developer to refund Rs. 1,33,32,208 plus GST of Rs. 15,99,865, totaling Rs. 1,49,32,073, to eligible buyers identified in Annexure 11 to DGAP’s report. The report identifies 1,525 eligible buyers. Interest is 18% per annum from the dates of collecting the higher amounts until actual refund, under Rule 133(3)(b). No Consumer Welfare Fund payment or refund of unutilised ITC to the developer is ordered.

Compliance must be reported to the jurisdictional Commissioner, with intimation to DGAP, within three months from the order date. This express reporting period is distinct from the thirty-day penalty proviso quoted in paragraph 23; the operative paragraph does not separately state a numerical principal-refund deadline. Penalty applicability is stated, but no exact rupee penalty or post-2020 allocation is assessed.

The matter is disposed of and pronounced in open court. The typed order and visible digital-signature date are 27 April 2026. The full Annexure 11, individual collection dates and completed payments are not included in this PDF.

Source: Penalty paragraph 23, physical p. 13; operative and reporting paragraph 24, p. 14; communication, disposal and pronouncement paragraphs 25–27, p. 14. Administrative summary, p. 2.

04 · In favour of

Final substantive liability judgment. The Tribunal rejects the GST objection and gives reasoned treatment to the earlier unutilised-credit and fixed-price defences, alongside the developer’s later acceptance of base findings. The wider complainant requests are recorded without being converted into additional awards.

Source: Paragraphs 14–24, physical pp. 10–14, read with the submissions at paragraphs 7–12, pp. 6–9.