Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, Anti-Profiteering Division · GST · AKHB case note

Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd.

NAPA/151/PB/2025
No neutral or reporter citation printed in the identified official order. ·
Final disposal of this proceeding at the stated stage, linked to the claim before CIRP/NCLT.

Issue: Final disposal at this stage after profiteering claim placed before CIRP/NCLT
Provisions: GST anti-profiteering proceedings, as recorded in the original
Bench: Justice Mayank Kumar Jain, Member (Judicial); Court II

Reasoned final decision

Procedural disposal concerning the respondent; no independent merits determination or recovery outcome is established.

01 · Facts of the case and issues

Following an earlier order dated 3 September 2026, DGAP furnished details of a claim submitted before the CIRP official. It informed the Tribunal that the NCLT at New Delhi was seized of the matter concerning the profiteering amount determined against the respondent. The short published order gives no claim amount, project name or insolvency case number.

Source: Unnumbered reasoned order, physical p. 2; identity p. 1.

02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court

The Tribunal’s disposition follows the placement of the claim within the insolvency process. The order does not independently decide the amount, priority or admission of that claim and does not record that payment has been received. The description that the matter is before NCLT is the basis of this GSTAT disposal.

Source: Unnumbered reasoned order, physical p. 2; identity p. 1.

03 · Judicial decision and operative relief

On 21 September 2026 the Tribunal disposed of the matter at this stage. It made no new quantified refund, interest or penalty award and did not expressly decide the eventual NCLT treatment of the claim.

Source: Unnumbered reasoned order, physical p. 2; identity p. 1.

04 · In favour of

Final disposal of this proceeding at the stated stage, linked to the claim before CIRP/NCLT.

Source: Unnumbered reasoned order, physical p. 2; identity p. 1.

05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT

AKHB analysis: Separate closure of a GSTAT proceeding from adjudication and recovery of an insolvency claim. The words at this stage should be preserved; they do not establish an unconditional merits exoneration or proof of creditor payment. Obtain the claim, relevant insolvency orders and any subsequent proceedings before advising on enforcement or recovery. Do not invent a claim amount from other cases involving the same company.

Source: AKHB source-based analysis of unnumbered reasoned order, physical p. 2; identity p. 1.

Source and verification

Complete 2-page original read and visually checked. · Individual hosted copy of the original judgment

Complete 2-page official GSTAT order. Underlying reports and documents mentioned in the reasons were not independently obtained.

Source checked 2026-10-17. Paragraph references follow the identified official judgment; PDF-page references follow that source file. The court’s printed paragraph numbers may differ from commercial reporting.

All source pages text/visual checked.

No source text or existing entry altered.

Statutory scope

Historical source-based explanation of this final disposition; no independent statement of current insolvency or tax law.

Later treatment and present applicability

Bounded exact-party/case/date and recall or appeal searches on 17 October 2026 identified no later primary order affecting this disposition. This is not exhaustive docket clearance or verification of compliance or insolvency recovery.

Additional identified sources

AI disclosure & professional disclaimer

AI-assisted research checked against the identified primary source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.

General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on the facts, tax period, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless the note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.

Browse Judicial Pronouncement Under GST Law