Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Vasavi and GP Infra LLP

01 · Facts of the case and issues

Two complaints concerning Vasavi GP Trends were referred for investigation, the first on 30 May 2022 and the second following the Standing Committee’s 12 January 2023 meeting. After DGAP’s 24 February 2023 report, CCI directed re-examination of sale documents on 1 December 2023 and further investigation on 7 May 2024 following Reckitt Benckiser. The 9 October 2024 report initially calculated Rs. 6,02,89,656 excluding GST and a balance of Rs. 2,54,20,175 after earlier benefit credits.

Following contested hearings, GSTAT’s 13 February 2026 order directed limited reconsideration of six listed questions: the balance liability, actual service-related ITC versus a notional 1.7978% measure, Rs. 46,40,136 claimed passed to thirteen buyers who denied receipt, comparison of post-GST prices, embedded ITC benefit, and GST already paid to the Government. This was not an open de novo investigation.

The March 2026 report revised total benefit to Rs. 1,51,87,625 and remaining benefit to Rs. 71,37,747, both excluding GST. Its reproduced Table A contains twenty-five buyer rows, including two negative balances. The developer accepted the report subject to excluding service ITC, proposing Rs. 51,73,776, and opposed addition of GST as double recovery. The Tribunal therefore still had live substantive issues to decide.

Source: Complaint and CCI history: paragraphs 1–9, physical pp. 2–4. Limited remand: paragraphs 10–11, pp. 4–6. DGAP’s reconsideration and Table A: paragraph 12, pp. 6–12. Remaining objections and issues: paragraphs 14–16, pp. 13–14.

02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court

The Tribunal’s own determination begins at paragraph 17. It found additional benefit on the project’s pre-/post-GST comparison and approved the revised ITC-to-construction-cost approach. It rejected exclusion of input-service credit, holding that the relevant benefit was not confined to material inputs. It relied on Reckitt Benckiser and reproduced the CBEC construction clarification dated 15 June 2017. These are the reasons applied to this project; the note does not treat all available ITC as automatically identical to incremental benefit, or prescribe a universal developer formula.

Paragraph 22 accepted Rs. 46,40,136 as already passed to thirteen buyers because DGAP had verified books, customer ledgers and credit notes showing reduced amounts payable. On that evidence, email denials did not displace documented price adjustment, and a separate cash refund was unnecessary. Paragraph 23 also accepted benefit embedded in post-GST prices to the extent supported by contemporaneous internal circulars and meeting minutes. These are fact-specific findings, not an unconditional exemption for post-GST sales or a rule that any accounting entry conclusively proves compliance.

Paragraphs 24–25 accepted the revised total and balance but expressly prohibited offsetting one buyer’s excess benefit against another buyer’s shortfall. Paragraphs 27–28 required return of the corresponding 12% GST component even if already remitted to the Government: the direction concerns restitution of the entire excess collected from buyers. The order gives no corresponding tax-refund award to the developer.

Material numerical tensions remain in the source. Paragraph 7 prints earlier benefit of Rs. 3,48,69,481, while paragraphs 12.12–12.13 and 24 print Rs. 3,48,69,781. The Rs. 2,54,20,175 historical balance reconciles to the former figure, not the latter. In Table A, the twenty-five displayed gross-benefit entries total Rs. 1,43,90,122.08 rather than the printed Rs. 1,51,87,625. The positive displayed balances total Rs. 64,20,574.01 rather than Rs. 71,37,747; netting the two negative rows gives Rs. 54,69,710.96 and would also contradict the express no-cross-buyer-offset rule. Nine displayed row subtractions differ, including flat 1002’s Rs. 3,35,308.56 against displayed factors producing Rs. 3,19,538.56. These are checks of printed figures only. The full report and unrounded workings are absent, so the note retains the ordered liability and does not invent corrected recipient amounts.

The report is generally dated 13 March 2026, but paragraph 15.4 says 12 March. Paragraph 12.1 describes reconsideration of questions 1–5 although paragraph 10 lists six. The report’s Rs. 294.84 per-square-foot benefit and paragraph 26’s approximately Rs. 138 remaining profiteering per square foot are different stated measures, not silently substituted rates. For interest, paragraphs 29–32 apply Rule 133(3)(b) and compensatory restitution from each excess collection to refund. Paragraph 33 holds penalty attracted because the stated 1 July 2017–30 September 2024 period crosses commencement on 1 January 2020, but does not allocate the amount by period or fix a penalty sum.

Source: Actual merits reasons: paragraphs 17–28, physical pp. 15–21. Documentary pass-through and embedded prices: paragraphs 22–23, pp. 18–19. Numerical checks: paragraph 7, p. 4; paragraphs 12.12–12.13 and Table A, pp. 9–12; paragraph 24, p. 19. Report/question variants: paragraphs 10, 12.1 and 15.4, pp. 5–6, 14. Interest and penalty: paragraphs 29–33, pp. 21–23.

03 · Judicial decision and operative relief

GSTAT directed Vasavi and GP Infra LLP to pass Rs. 71,37,747 excluding GST, plus Rs. 8,56,530 GST, totalling Rs. 79,94,277, to the eligible homebuyers identified in DGAP’s report dated 13 March 2026. Interest at 18% per annum runs from the respective dates of collecting the higher amounts until actual refund. Interest is additional and no aggregate interest sum is assessed.

Paragraph 33 holds Section 171(3A) penalty attracted and reproduces the ten-per-cent provision together with the exception where the profiteered amount is deposited within thirty days of the order. It does not quantify a rupee penalty or allocate pre-/post-1 January 2020 liability. The note therefore does not calculate ten per cent of the full multi-year amount as an assessed penalty.

Compliance must be reported to the jurisdictional Commissioner within three months from the order date, with a copy to DGAP. The operative paragraph does not set a separate thirty-day refund deadline; the thirty days appears in the penalty proviso. No Consumer Welfare Fund deposit is directed. The matter is disposed of, judgment pronounced, and both visible digital signatures bear 7 May 2026. Actual payment and compliance remain unverified.

Source: Interest: paragraphs 29–32, physical pp. 21–22. Qualified penalty: paragraph 33, p. 23. Exact principal/GST, recipient identification, interest and report direction: paragraph 34, pp. 23–24 and administrative summary, pp. 1–2. Disposal and signatures: paragraphs 35–37, p. 24.

04 · In favour of

Final substantive judgment after limited reconsideration. The Tribunal gives developed reasons on surviving contested issues and grants both material computation relief and enforceable remaining restitution. The earlier remand is historical; this 7 May 2026 order is not merely procedural or a settlement acceptance.

Source: Paragraphs 14–37, physical pp. 13–24; especially substantive findings at paragraphs 17–33 and final direction at paragraph 34.