Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Nandi Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (Amaatra Homes)

01 · Facts of the case and issues

A buyer in Amaatra Homes complained that Nandi Infratech had not reduced instalments to pass on the GST input-tax-credit benefit. His booking and allotment are recorded as 1 February and 16 August 2016. The initial DGAP report dated 27 October 2021 led to NAA Order 64/2022 dated 31 August 2022 finding profiteering. The present order records a later CCI remand for reinvestigation following the Delhi High Court’s Reckitt Benckiser decision and a revised DGAP report dated 9 January 2025.

The project’s occupation certificates were issued in stages: towers F/G/H/I on 16 January 2020, B/C/E on 12 November 2020, D on 18 August 2021 and A/J on 6 January 2023. The investigation addressed 588 pre-GST bookings. The report excluded 349 GST-era bookings on its recorded evidence of lower base prices in builder-buyer agreements. This was a case-specific investigative treatment, not a general ruling exempting all post-GST buyers. Nine units were unsold; the source’s detailed categories total 946 units, comprising 937 sold/booked and nine unsold.

Nandi disputed the methodology, credit treatment and comparability of periods. The original applicant also sought interest on money retained following cancellation of his flat. The order records separate RERA proceedings concerning that cancellation. The Tribunal ultimately treated that personal cancellation-related interest grievance as outside section 171, with recourse to the appropriate forum.

Source: Paragraphs 1–8, physical pp. 2–5; paragraph 12 table, pp. 7–8; paragraphs 16–25, pp. 9–17, especially paragraphs 23–25 on the separate grievance.

02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court

The DGAP’s purchase-value comparison used pre-GST credit of ₹9,61,37,424 against purchases of ₹82,33,94,051 and post-GST credit of ₹14,44,00,864 against purchases of ₹99,18,58,928. The printed ratios are 11.68% and 14.56%, an increase of 2.88 percentage points. For the post-GST period printed as July 2017–April 2024, the report calculated total additional-credit savings of ₹2,85,65,537, about ₹27.60 per sq. ft., and attributed ₹1,72,03,701 before GST to pre-GST booked units. The buyer table reports ₹1,92,68,145 inclusive of GST after rounding. These figures have distinct roles and are not all amounts remaining unpaid.

The buyer-wise analysis is decisive. Eleven buyers had a combined shortfall of ₹1,24,893.05; 50 had received no benefit and were attributed ₹13,54,223.81. Although 527 buyers were recorded as receiving more than required, their excess could not offset another buyer’s entitlement. The two deficient groups produce ₹14,79,116.86, rounded to ₹14,79,117 in paragraph 13. The text records aggregate benefit already passed of ₹5,89,32,169; the printed total row contains a different benefit figure, as explained below.

Nandi’s objections included inflation, construction stages, unequal periods, transitional credit and reversals. Its later submission dated 20 April 2026 expressed willingness to accept the report to end the prolonged dispute, while reserving rights and denying acquiescence. The Tribunal treated that submission as voluntary acceptance and concluded that section 171 had been contravened. The final reasoning does not supply a detailed independent resolution of every methodological objection.

The applicant’s separate claim for interest on retained flat-purchase money was directed to the appropriate forum. That jurisdictional conclusion is distinct from statutory interest on profiteering under Rule 133(3)(b).

Source: Paragraphs 9–13 and tables, pp. 6–8; paragraph 16, pp. 9–10; paragraph 22(iv) and paragraphs 23–25, pp. 15–17; paragraphs 28–29, p. 18.

03 · Judicial decision and operative relief

The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report dated 9 January 2025 and found that Nandi had contravened section 171 and indulged in profiteering. The accepted report’s body identifies a residual buyer-wise benefit of ₹14,79,117, rounded from ₹14,79,116.86. The operative order separately makes Nandi liable for interest at 18% on the profiteered amount from collection of the higher amount until its return, under Rule 133(3)(b). It does not provide a buyer-wise interest calculation or independently quantify the interest payable.

The order was pronounced on 12 May 2026 and directed transmission to the jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner for information and necessary action. No penalty, Consumer Welfare Fund deposit or separate award of the applicant’s cancellation-related interest is ordered. The administrative label “Closure Report” does not change the adverse liability finding or the express interest direction. The present order does not certify that the adopted payment obligations have since been discharged.

Source: Paragraphs 13, 25 and 28–33, physical pp. 8, 17–19; administrative summary p. 2.

04 · In favour of

Final project-specific adverse determination accepting the revised DGAP report following the respondent’s stated acceptance, with statutory interest. It is not a finding that all buyers were underpaid, an unqualified validation of every calculation method, or an adjudication of the buyer’s RERA/cancellation dispute.

Source: Paragraphs 12–13, pp. 7–8; paragraphs 23–25 and 28–33, pp. 17–19.