Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. The Anant Raj Corporation Ltd. (TARC Limited)

01 · Facts of the case and issues

A MACEO homebuyer complained that the developer had not passed on additional input-tax-credit benefits following introduction of GST through a commensurate price reduction. The judgment identifies the respondent in its caption as The Anant Raj Corporation Ltd. and in the body as TARC Limited. It recites a NCLT-approved transfer of the project division with appointed date 30 September 2018 and order dated 24 August 2020, including project liabilities. Those scheme facts are source recitals; the underlying NCLT order was not independently examined for this note.

The investigation covered 1 July 2017 to 31 March 2024. DGAP recorded continuation of the old 12% GST-with-ITC scheme, absence of final occupancy certification, and all 788 flats, covering 15,84,208 square feet, sold before final OC. The earlier purchase-based calculation compared credit-to-purchase ratios of 14.00% before GST and 14.49% afterwards. It used post-GST purchases of Rs. 1,79,54,30,365 and additional ITC savings of Rs. 87,97,609, and proposed Rs. 98,53,322 profiteering. That proposal was superseded and is not the amount ordered.

The respondent challenged the calculation method, inclusion of buyers beyond the complainant, inclusion of GST and interest liability. DGAP defended the pass-through obligation and calculation. The eventual issue was whether revised documentary evidence of actual expenses and cost escalation left any additional ITC savings requiring pass-through for MACEO.

Source: Identity and complaint: physical pp. 1–3, original paragraphs 1–3. Scheme/history and investigation: pp. 3–6, original paragraphs 6–12. Earlier calculation: pp. 6–8, original paragraphs 13–14 and reset paragraph 1. Competing submissions: pp. 8–10, reset paragraphs 2–4.

02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court

The Tribunal recorded reliance on the actual-savings/actual-expenses approach discussed in Laureate Buildwell and quoted the earlier SVP Builders investigation directions. The quoted remand language is history, not the operative disposition of this case. It directed DGAP to examine additional documents and submit a supplementary report.

On a CA certificate and sample procurement invoices, DGAP accepted substantial post-GST increases in core construction-material costs. Its report of 1 September 2026 retained additional ITC savings of Rs. 87,97,609 on purchases of Rs. 1,79,54,30,365, but deducted verified cost escalation of Rs. 3,78,17,556. The resulting negative net savings of Rs. 2,90,19,947 led to a revised nil-profiteering finding for MACEO. The subtraction reconciles; the underlying certificate, invoice samples and detailed workings were not independently audited for this note.

The Tribunal recorded attempts to obtain the complainant's response through email, the GSTAT portal and registered post, with no response. Neither the respondent nor other homebuyers placed objections to the revised report on record. It accepted the documentary no-contravention conclusion. This is a project-specific acceptance of the revised evidence and calculation; it does not hold that any assertion of rising costs automatically extinguishes Section 171 obligations.

The source has defective paragraph numbering and inconsistent historical recitals. It also shows Rs. 98,53,322 in an earlier table as the product of Rs. 5.55 per square foot and 15,84,208 square feet, although those displayed figures do not yield that amount. The later nil conclusion uses a different, reconciled negative-savings calculation. The superseded table must not be silently repaired or mistaken for an operative liability.

Source: Quoted earlier approach: physical pp. 10–12, reset paragraph 4 and its quoted passages. Supplementary investigation and revised calculation: p. 12, printed paragraphs 23–25, continuing table on p. 13. No objections and acceptance reasoning: p. 13, reset paragraphs 5–8. Superseded arithmetic: p. 7, original paragraph 14 table.

03 · Judicial decision and operative relief

The Tribunal accepted DGAP's supplementary report dated 1 September 2026, which found nil profiteering and no contravention of Section 171 for the MACEO project on the revised record. It directed communication of the judgment to the concerned CGST/SGST Commissionerate for record and necessary action and its upload to the GSTAT portal. Judgment was pronounced on 14 October 2026.

No principal payment to homebuyers, Consumer Welfare Fund deposit, interest or penalty is ordered. The negative net-savings figure is not a refund award in the developer's favour. The earlier Rs. 98,53,322 proposal is not confirmed. The administrative Closure Report and Confirmed labels do not change the reasoned nil result.

The judgment does not separately decide all of the respondent's alternative legal objections. Its operative basis is acceptance of the revised DGAP report and the project-specific no-contravention conclusion.

Source: No-contravention reasoning: physical p. 13, reset paragraph 8. Operative acceptance, communication, pronouncement and upload: physical p. 14, final reset paragraphs 9–12. Administrative form labels: p. 2.

04 · In favour of

Final substantive no-contravention determination on the revised project calculation. The accepted cost escalation exceeded the additional ITC savings. Complainant nonresponse and absence of objections support the procedural history; the recorded calculation and report acceptance supply the merits basis.

Source: Physical pp. 12–13, printed paragraphs 23–25, revised table and reset paragraphs 5–8; p. 14, final reset paragraph 9.