โ† Back to Blog

๐—š๐—ฆ๐—ง๐—”๐—ง ๐——๐—ฒ๐—น๐—ต๐—ถ: ๐—ฆ๐—ฎ๐˜ƒ๐—ฎ๐—น๐—ถ๐˜†๐—ฎ ๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—˜๐˜€๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—”๐—ป๐˜๐—ถ-๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—”๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ฎ๐˜€ ๐—œ๐—ง๐—– ๐—•๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐˜ ๐——๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—”๐—ณ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—š๐—ฆ๐—ง

Team BharatXยท
๐—š๐—ฆ๐—ง๐—”๐—ง ๐——๐—ฒ๐—น๐—ต๐—ถ: ๐—ฆ๐—ฎ๐˜ƒ๐—ฎ๐—น๐—ถ๐˜†๐—ฎ ๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—˜๐˜€๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—”๐—ป๐˜๐—ถ-๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—”๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ฎ๐˜€ ๐—œ๐—ง๐—– ๐—•๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐˜ ๐——๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—”๐—ณ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—š๐—ฆ๐—ง

GSTAT Delhi (Principal Bench) held that the respondent had not contravened Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, as no additional benefit of ITC accrued upon the introduction of GST. The proceedings concerned alleged profiteering in the respondentโ€™s Krish Elite project for the period June 2017 to June 2019, on the ground that ITC benefits were not passed on to buyers through commensurate price reductions. The DGAPโ€™s recalculation showed that the ITC-to-purchase-value ratio declined from 6.55% in the pre-GST period to 5.77% in the post-GST period, indicating that no additional ITC benefit arose. The Tribunal noted that both the respondent and the applicant accepted the DGAPโ€™s findings and accordingly accepted the report dated 16 December 2025, concluding that there was no profiteering in contravention of Section 171. 

Savaliya Procon.pdf