Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Maruti Developers

01 · Facts of the case and issues

A complainant who requested confidentiality alleged failure to pass on ITC benefit for Maruti Tower, Malad (West), Mumbai. DGAP’s original report was dated 24 March 2022. The judgment records subsequent CCI-directed reinvestigation following Reckitt and a revised DGAP report dated 21 November 2024. The relevant post-GST period was 1 July 2017 to 31 March 2019; the developer was recorded as opting for the 5% scheme without ITC from 1 April 2019.

The earlier computation compared 13.97% pre-GST with 17.64% post-GST credit-to-purchase ratios, yielding 3.67 percentage points and Rs. 4,38,421 inclusive of GST. That historical amount was later revised; it is not the operative demand. The rate and scheme references are historical findings in this project, not a complete current-rate opinion.

Source: Paragraphs 1–8.7, physical pp. 2–7.

02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court

On the Tribunal’s request for clarification about utilisation, DGAP accepted that Rs. 5,26,200 of the reported Rs. 62,94,879 GST ITC had remained unutilised up to March 2019 and was reversed through DRC-03 dated 24 July 2026. Net credit became Rs. 57,68,679; the post-GST ratio changed to 16.17% and the increment to 2.20 percentage points. The revised calculation used Rs. 38.08 per square foot, 20,617.14 square feet saleable area and 6,162.59 square feet sold area.

GSTAT examined the revised report, reversal, supporting material and flat-wise reconciliation. It found the revised computation consistent with the record and accepted Rs. 2,34,671 base benefit plus Rs. 28,161 GST, totaling Rs. 2,62,832. The respondent’s acceptance and promise of passing on the benefit did not end the matter as completed compliance: the Tribunal made statutory payment, interest and affidavit directions.

The operative table contains 12 flat entries and prints a total of Rs. 2,62,830, whereas the form and paragraphs 18 and 21 repeatedly determine Rs. 2,62,832. The two-rupee discrepancy is preserved without altering a buyer’s amount or inventing a reconciliation. Joint purchasers are listed for several flats; the table is not described as exactly 12 natural-person recipients.

Source: DGAP clarification: paragraphs 9.1–9.5, physical pp. 7–9. Reconciliation: paragraph 11 and table, physical pp. 9–12. Tribunal findings: paragraphs 12–18, physical pp. 13–17; final flat table, physical p. 18.

03 · Judicial decision and operative relief

GSTAT accepted the 12 August 2026 clarification and fixed the inclusive amount at Rs. 2,62,832, payable to eligible recipients with 18% interest from collection of the higher amount until return under Rule 133(3)(b). The 12-entry flat table remains subject to its printed Rs. 2,62,830 total discrepancy. Paragraph 22 requires compliance within 30 days but does not expressly state a separate receipt-based trigger; this note does not invent a concrete calendar deadline.

For Flat 202, Rs. 10,364 had been adjusted against the amount otherwise receivable. The developer must give the jurisdictional authorities an affidavit undertaking that, if those homebuyers pay the adjusted amount, it will forthwith pay/refund Rs. 10,364 with applicable interest, ensuring that the benefit is ultimately received. This conditional safeguard is not proof of a cash refund or authority for unrestricted netting.

No Section 171(3A) penalty was imposed because the entire investigated period ended on 31 March 2019, before its 1 January 2020 commencement. The form’s decision field and final typed date are 18 September 2026; the administrative date on page 2 and final-page digital-signature appearance are 19 September. Both dates are retained distinctly. Later payment, affidavit filing and interest calculation remain unverified.

Source: Paragraphs 17–23, physical pp. 16–19; form dates, physical pp. 1–2; digital signature, physical p. 19.

04 · In favour of

Final substantive liability at the revised amount, with recipient interest and a conditional affidavit safeguard. The historical Rs. 4,38,421 computation is superseded, but no completed-payment finding or total exoneration is made.

Source: Paragraphs 12–23, physical pp. 13–19.