Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Shreeji Infra

01 · Facts of the case and issues

Shreeji Infra developed Shree Two in Vadodara. The judgment records commencement permission dated 7 January 2019, first booking money on 21 February 2019, and 84 flats, of which 65 were booked. The project was ongoing on 1 April 2019. The recorded investigation period was 1 July 2017 to 31 March 2024, although the project commenced later.

DGAP’s report dated 24 October 2024 acknowledged the absence of pre-GST bookings and a pre-GST credit comparator. It nevertheless treated alleged collection of 5% GST instead of 1% for ten affordable flats as 4% savings, calculating Rs. 14,76,836 and adding 12% GST to arrive at Rs. 16,54,056. Those are the Department’s rejected figures and tax theory, not the Tribunal’s final liability or a verified present-rate conclusion.

Source: Paragraphs 1–12, physical pp. 2–9; ten-flat tables, physical pp. 5–8.

02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court

The applicant invoked the new 1%/5% no-ITC scheme and argued that excess tax collection engaged Section 171. The developer maintained that it had continued depositing 12% GST with ITC while recovering less from the customer. Its figures recorded Rs. 3,97,800 deposited and Rs. 1,70,250 recovered, with Rs. 2,27,550 borne by it. These are submissions reproduced in the order, not this note’s audit of the correct tax option, credit eligibility or treasury payments.

GSTAT analysed the statutory requirement of an actual tax-rate or ITC saving and rejected DGAP’s treatment of the alleged 4% excess tax as anti-profiteering savings. It relied on the post-GST commencement and absence of a pre-GST credit comparator on this record, and distinguished excess-tax realisation from the Section 171 computation. It expressly found the Rs. 16,54,056 computation unsustainable. This is a substantive rejection of a positive Departmental theory, rather than a settlement or unexplained report closure.

The source must be read as a whole. Paragraph 33 first says excess realisation cannot be treated as savings but then prints that the respondent was indulged in profiteering; the same paragraph rejects the computation, and paragraphs 36 and 38 unequivocally reject the report. The contradictory phrase is not silently rewritten. Nor is the post-GST project reasoning expanded into a blanket exemption from every subsequent rate-change or ITC event.

Source: Party submissions: paragraphs 14–24, physical pp. 9–12. Statutory discussion and findings: paragraphs 27–36, physical pp. 12–17; final rejection, paragraph 38, physical p. 18.

03 · Judicial decision and operative relief

GSTAT rejected the 24 October 2024 DGAP report. Separately, paragraph 40 directed the concerned Principal Chief Commissioner of the Zone to refund excess-realised GST to the applicant in accordance with law and intimate the Tribunal. It did not quantify that refund, identify a refund formula or impose a specific refund deadline. The rejected Rs. 16,54,056 is not converted into the applicant’s refund award.

The operative order imposes no interest or penalty. The applicant’s earlier request for 18% interest and Rule 133(3)(c) submission is not an interest award. The DGAP’s suggestion about investigation of allegedly ineligible ITC for 14 flats remains a submission; the judgment is not a certification that all tax collections or ITC claims were lawful. Actual refund and departmental action are unverified.

The applicant’s unit is C-403 in paragraph 4 but C-402 in paragraphs 5 and 31; the ten-flat table and later references to 14 flats are not harmonised. The ten printed savings rows add to Rs. 14,76,835, while the report prints Rs. 14,76,836; individual rounded component differences also remain. These do not supply a corrected assessment. The judgment was reserved on 7 September and pronounced/digitally signed on 19 September 2026.

Source: Paragraphs 4–5, physical p. 3; computation, physical pp. 7–8; DGAP clarification, paragraph 26, physical p. 12; reasoning, paragraphs 31–36, physical pp. 16–17; operative paragraphs 38–42, physical p. 18.

04 · In favour of

Final substantive rejection of the Section 171 theory with a separate, unquantified excess-tax refund direction to the Principal Chief Commissioner. The report’s rejection does not erase that direction or validate all underlying tax positions.

Source: Paragraphs 29–40, physical pp. 16–18.