2026-VIL-14-GSTAT-DEL-NAPA
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-14-GSTAT-DEL-NAPA

SGST Tribunal

GST – Anti-profiteering Investigation, Sale of flat/villa in post-GST regime - Locus standi to challenge DGAP Report - The complainants, who purchased a villa from the respondent (builder), alleged that the respondent did not pass on the benefit of input tax credit on introduction of GST, by way of commensurate reduction in the price. The DGAP, after investigation, found that the ratio of credit availed to purchase value declined from 12.26% in the pre-GST regime to 11.02% in the post-GST regime, indicating no incremental benefit to the respondent, and hence no requirement to pass on any benefit to the complainants - Whether the complainants have the locus standi to challenge the DGAP report, when the entire transaction, including the booking, agreement, construction and payment, took place in the post-GST regime - HELD - The Delhi High Court in Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI, case held that when the flat is constructed and purchased in the post-GST regime, no benefit of ITC is required to be passed on to the buyer, as the price would have been fixed after taking into account the ITC available to the builder in the post-GST regime - In the present case, the booking, agreement, construction and payment all took place in the post-GST regime. The price was determined after factoring in the ITC available to the respondent in the post-GST regime, which was not available in the pre-GST regime. The complainants had accepted the price so fixed, without any objection. Therefore, the case of the respondent is fully covered by the judgment in Reckitt Benckiser, and the complainants have no locus standi and legal rights to contest the DGAP report - The DGAP has rightly concluded that the ratio of ITC availed to purchase value was 12.26% in the pre-GST era which declined to 11.02% in post GST period. The reduction of ITC implies that no benefit accrued to the Respondent and hence question of passing on any benefit to the recipient would not arise. The Respondent has not contravened the provision of Section 171 of CGST Act r/w Rule 129(6) of the CGST Rules – Ordered accordingly
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTAT Appeal filed wrongly...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

Security-Code
New Code?
New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?