DG Anti Profiteering v. Bengal Peerless Housing Development Company Ltd. (Other Projects)

01 · Facts of the case and issues

Bengal Peerless, a joint venture of the West Bengal Housing Board and The Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Limited, developed residential and commercial property. The Tribunal traced the anti-profiteering proceedings to complaints about construction services and the National Anti-Profiteering Authority's interim order dated 30 September 2022. An investigation into other projects under Rule 133(5) produced a report dated 6 April 2023. Following a fresh remand on 6 January 2026, DGAP submitted the report dated 12 March 2026 that this final order accepts.

The new investigation covered 1 July 2017 to 23 February 2021, the recorded date of the final occupancy certificate for Digangana Housing Complex. DGAP screened the developer's projects and common services under the same GST registration. Other listed projects were excluded for the aggregated reasons recorded in the judgment: pre-GST completion, being outside GST, construction or sales not commencing during the relevant period, or common-service activity. The reproduced passage does not assign a particular exclusion reason to each named project. Digangana was investigated because construction continued across the GST transition.

Of 62 units covering 52,754 square feet, 14 units covering 11,521 square feet were booked after final occupancy certification. The remaining 48 units and 41,233 square feet were considered relevant. The unit and area subtractions reconcile. This record is distinct from the developer's Avidipta-II proceeding, resolved by a separate final order dated 14 January 2026, which the present order refers to as procedural background.

Source: Identity and origin: physical pp. 2–4, paragraphs 1–5. Fresh remand/report and investigation period: p. 5, paragraphs 9–10.2. Project screening and unit/area table: p. 6, paragraphs 10.3–10.4. Avidipta-II distinction: pp. 3–4, paragraph 4.

02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court

The Tribunal recorded the Delhi High Court's case-specific methodology approach in Reckitt Benckiser and the resulting remand. DGAP examined pre-GST CENVAT credit, transitional credit, post-GST ITC and purchases using statutory returns, accounts, electronic credit ledgers and CA certificates. The report also recorded verification of credit reversals attributable to exempt supplies under Sections 17(2) and 17(3), read with Rule 42.

The reproduced calculation compared eligible credit with purchase value, not turnover. Pre-GST credit of Rs. 13,87,870 on purchases of Rs. 1,32,89,574 yielded a rounded 10.44% ratio. Post-GST net ITC of Rs. 92,54,574 on purchases of Rs. 9,18,23,757 yielded 10.08%. The post-GST ratio was therefore lower by 0.36 percentage points on the displayed rounded figures. DGAP found no additional ITC benefit requiring a commensurate price reduction. The larger absolute post-GST credit figure did not itself establish an incremental benefit when tested against the purchase base used in the accepted report.

The developer accepted the report. The Tribunal recorded that the complainants did not appear or file objections despite notice and opportunities. It considered the report and evidence and found no reason to differ. The nil result rests on acceptance of the reproduced project investigation and calculation, rather than only on complainant nonappearance.

The order also addresses a Calcutta High Court proceeding. It recites an earlier requirement to obtain leave before a final order, followed by a later High Court direction to determine the matter on the 12 March 2026 report, preferably by 31 August 2026 after hearing the parties. The later order is quoted but not dated in the GSTAT reasons. Its full primary text and current writ status were not independently established in this research. The recital cannot be treated as a separate High Court merits endorsement or proof that every related proceeding ended.

Source: Methodology/remand recital: physical p. 3, paragraph 3, and p. 5, paragraph 9. Documents, reversals and ratio table: p. 7, paragraphs 10.5–10.6. DGAP conclusion: p. 8, paragraphs 10.7–10.8. Parties and evidentiary acceptance: pp. 8–10, paragraphs 11–18. High Court history: p. 4, paragraph 6; pp. 9–10, paragraphs 14–15.

03 · Judicial decision and operative relief

The Tribunal accepted DGAP's Final Investigation Report dated 12 March 2026. It held that no additional ITC benefit had accrued on implementation of GST on the investigated record, that no contravention of Section 171(1) was established, and that no amount was required to be passed to homebuyers by commensurate price reduction.

The anti-profiteering proceedings were disposed of without further substantive directions. The Registry was directed to supply the order to the parties and the jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner for information and necessary action, if any, according to law. There is no operative refund, Consumer Welfare Fund deposit, interest, penalty or costs award.

This is a final project-specific merits determination within the anti-profiteering proceeding. It neither decides unrelated GST liabilities nor grants a universal exemption to every housing project, every post-occupancy sale, or all of the developer's future activity. The administrative form's Confirmed and Closure Report labels must be read with these reasoned operative findings.

Source: Physical pp. 10–11, paragraphs 16–23, especially paragraphs 18–20. Administrative summary: physical p. 2, items 7–9.

04 · In favour of

Final substantive nil-profiteering outcome. The Tribunal accepted the report showing the eligible-credit-to-purchase ratio falling from 10.44% to 10.08%, found no additional ITC benefit to pass through, and disposed of the anti-profiteering proceedings. Complainant nonappearance forms part of the procedural record, not the whole merits basis.

Source: Physical pp. 7–8, paragraphs 10.5–10.8; pp. 10–11, paragraphs 16–20.