Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Mangalbela Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.

01 · Facts of the case and issues

The complaint concerned Unit 7/1F(15) in Atri Green Valley, West Bengal. DGAP submitted its original report on 14 July 2021. The order records that proceedings had not culminated in a final NAA adjudication; CCI remitted the pending matter on 20 March 2024 under Rule 133(4), and DGAP submitted the revised report dated 20 November 2025. These are the investigation and institutional steps recorded in this GSTAT judgment.

The revised report described Atri Green Valley Phase-II and compared April 2013–June 2017 with July 2017–March 2019. It stated credit-to-purchase ratios of 2.37% and 8.42%, an increase of 6.05 percentage points, and allocated benefit over the project area. The respondent deliberately contested jurisdiction, limitation and natural justice rather than the calculation or buyer entitlement; its election is not described as completed payment or unconditional acceptance of the proceedings.

Source: Paragraphs 1–14, physical pp. 2–11; pending-proceeding finding, paragraphs 16.2–16.4, physical p. 14.

02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court

GSTAT distinguished the binding methodological principle in Reckitt from relief confined to parties in that litigation. It held that correcting methodology in a pending investigation was not review of a concluded adjudication. The original reference remained alive, DGAP acted on a Rule 133(4) remand, and no fresh Standing Committee reference was required on these facts. This does not authorize reopening every concluded anti-profiteering matter.

The Tribunal rejected the limitation objection by treating the reporting time as directory, noting that complete documents were received only in August 2025 and relying on opportunities afforded to the respondent. It also rejected natural-justice objections: the respondent received the report and was heard on its legal objections but chose not to address the calculation. Paragraph 17.2 prints an open-ended extension formulation for Rule 129(6). The historical official rule and the 2019 amendment instead retain a further-three-month extension limit after the initial period became six months. The Tribunal’s directory-time conclusion is reported as its reasoning; the printed quotation is not endorsed as exact statutory text.

On the merits, GSTAT found no price list, credit note, refund voucher or other evidence of pass-through. It adopted Rs. 27,86,198 base benefit plus Rs. 3,34,344 GST, totaling Rs. 31,20,542 for 66 buyers. The figures use 2,21,255 square feet total saleable area, 69,085 square feet sold area and Rs. 40.33 per square foot; the displayed Table B calculations reproduce the stated rupee totals on rounding. Underlying ledgers and individual entitlements are not independently re-audited.

Source: Jurisdiction/remand: paragraphs 15.1–16.4, physical pp. 11–14. Limitation/natural justice: paragraphs 17.1–18.2, physical pp. 14–17. Merits: paragraphs 19.1–19.5, physical pp. 17–19; Tables A–B, physical pp. 4–5.

03 · Judicial decision and operative relief

GSTAT accepted the report and directed the respondent to pass Rs. 31,20,542 to 66 eligible buyers in proportion to sold area within three months from the order. Interest at 18% per annum was ordered, but its start is internally inconsistent: paragraph 19.6 uses each buyer’s last-instalment payment date, while operative paragraph 20.2 uses accrual of the benefit. Both run to actual refund/passing-on. No harmonised trigger or buyer-wise interest amount is invented.

The Tribunal excluded Section 171(3A) penalty because the stated contravention period, 1 July 2017 to 31 March 2019, ended before its 1 January 2020 commencement. The respondent must file a compliance report with the jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner within 30 days after expiry of the three-month period. The matter was disposed of and pronounced on 30 September 2026; actual payment and reporting remain unverified.

The project is called Atri Green Valley in the operative reasoning and Phase-II in the investigation. Earlier submissions are dated 15 May 2026 in paragraphs 10 and 14 but 18 May in paragraphs 18.1 and 19.3. The cited A J Enterprises date is truncated in paragraph 11.4 and stated as 20 February 2025 in paragraph 17.3. The freshly checked related original confirms 20 February 2026. The printed 2025 and truncated dates are preserved as source errors rather than silently corrected.

Source: Paragraphs 19.5–24, physical pp. 18–20; source recitals at paragraphs 7.1, 10, 11.4, 14, 17.3, 18.1 and 19.3, physical pp. 4, 6, 8, 10, 16–17.

04 · In favour of

Final substantive contravention and recipient-payment determination after reasoned rejection of the developer’s preliminary objections. No Section 171(3A) penalty; the two interest-start formulations remain unresolved.

Source: Paragraphs 15–20.2 and 22–24, physical pp. 11–20.