Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Amal Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

01 · Facts of the case and issues

The applicant alleged failure to pass on ITC benefit for Flat MV 06041 in Madhu Vasant CHS Ltd., Mumbai. DGAP’s report dated 29 January 2025 covered 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2019, including the pre-GST comparator period. The respondent was recorded as opting for the 5% GST scheme without ITC from 1 April 2019.

The project had 36 residential units and 26,714 square feet of saleable area. The investigation excluded 21 flats allotted without monetary consideration to existing society members and ten flats booked under the later no-ITC scheme, leaving five flats. DGAP accepted a reversal of Rs. 68,92,459 from reported GST credit of Rs. 1,23,45,880, leaving Rs. 54,53,421 net credit. These are project-specific investigation findings, not an exemption for every redevelopment or later-booked flat.

Source: Paragraphs 1–5.5, physical pp. 2–4; Tribunal’s scope finding at paragraph 13, physical p. 9.

02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court

The report compared credit with purchase value and found a decline from 8.26% before GST to 7.87% afterwards, or 0.39 percentage points. Table A labels purchase values as including taxes and duties. GSTAT accepted the conclusion that no additional ITC benefit arose on this investigated record.

The applicant challenged reliance on CA-certified figures, consolidated returns for more than one project and selective pass-through. DGAP said the statutory returns could not be bifurcated project-wise but the supplied CA-certified figures related exclusively to Madhu Vasant. The Tribunal accepted that evidentiary explanation. This is not a general holding that a CA certificate replaces all project-wise reconciliation.

GSTAT separately accepted that Rs. 4,51,873 transitional SGST credit from VAT had been passed to eligible purchasers under Maharashtra Trade Circular 18T of 2017. For this applicant it recorded a post-GST executed/registered agreement, VAT collected on the pre-GST advance described as Rs. 52,416 and deposited with the VAT Department, and no corresponding credit available to pass on. Paragraph 9.2 instead prints Rs. 4,71,873. That Rs. 20,000 discrepancy is preserved without substituting a new entitlement or treating every post-GST agreement as ineligible.

Source: Ratios: paragraphs 5.5–5.7, physical pp. 4–5. Objections/replies: paragraphs 8–10, physical pp. 5–8. Tribunal findings: paragraphs 16–18, physical pp. 9–10.

03 · Judicial decision and operative relief

GSTAT accepted DGAP’s report dated 29 January 2025 and disposed of the proceedings. It found no additional ITC benefit from the GST transition for the investigated flats and no corresponding transitional VAT-credit benefit for the applicant’s transaction on the stated facts. Copies were directed to the parties, DGAP and jurisdictional Commissioners. No refund, interest amount or penalty was imposed in the operative order.

The result concerns Madhu Vasant, not the respondent’s other projects. Paragraph 11 lists a hearing on 30 November 2025 while the form lists 30 October 2025; neither historical entry is silently corrected. The decision and digital-signature date are 11 August 2026. The underlying schedules, complete project reconciliation and VAT payment records are not independently audited by this note.

Source: Paragraphs 12–22, physical pp. 9–10; hearing recital, paragraph 11, physical p. 8; form, physical p. 2.

04 · In favour of

Final project-specific no-contravention disposal after consideration of the applicant’s objections. The prior pass-through of transitional VAT credit is distinct from additional post-GST ITC benefit.

Source: Paragraphs 16–21, physical pp. 9–10.