2026-VIL-331-GSTAT-DEL-NAPA
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-331-GSTAT-DEL-NAPA

SGST Tribunal

GST - Anti-profiteering - Maintainability of application under Rule 31 of GSTAT (Anti-Profiteering Methodology and Procedure) Rules, 2025 - Tribunal had directed the Respondent to refund the profiteered amount along with the GST component and interest to the homebuyers for failure to pass on the benefit of ITC under Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017. The Respondent filed an application seeking correction or modification of that order - Whether the application under Rule 31 is maintainable - HELD - Jurisdiction under Rule 31 is limited to correction of a clerical, arithmetical or factual mistake apparent from the record. It does not confer a general power of review or permit reconsideration of an order on merits merely because a party is aggrieved by the findings. A mistake apparent from the record must be obvious and patent and cannot be one that requires a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which two views may be possible. The issues raised, including the challenge to the GST component, were considered and adjudicated in the original proceedings. The Respondent did not identify any obvious and patent error in the findings or directions. The examination of the grounds is confined to clarifying the implementation of existing directions - The application is held not maintainable under Rule 31 - Deposit in Consumer Welfare Fund - Rule 133(3)(c) of CGST Rules, 2017 - The Respondent could not obtain the bank account details of certain identified homebuyers and sought permission to deposit the corresponding amounts in the Consumer Welfare Fund instead of refunding them directly - Whether the Respondent may be permitted to deposit the amounts attributable to the homebuyers in the Consumer Welfare Fund in view of the stated inability to effect direct refunds - HELD - Rule 133(3)(c) contemplates deposit in the Fund in two distinct circumstances, namely where the eligible person does not claim return of the amount or is not identifiable - Mere identification of an eligible person coupled with non-availability of bank account particulars does not establish that such person is unidentifiable. The absence of a refund by itself does not establish that the amount is unclaimed. The principle that the law does not demand the impossible must be established on cogent material demonstrating genuine impossibility. It cannot dispense with an express statutory requirement - The Respondent remains under an obligation to refund directly wherever particulars are available. For the remaining amounts, it must demonstrate reasonable and bona fide efforts and maintain a homebuyer-wise statement with documentary evidence. The original complainant is an identified recipient, and his amount cannot be deposited in the Fund merely because his bank particulars are unavailable. The permission is confined to the facts of the case and is not a general authorisation - The Respondent is permitted to deposit in the Fund only the amounts attributable to homebuyers whose direct refunds cannot be effected, subject to the conditions of Rule 133(3)(c) - Inclusion of GST component in profiteered amount - Rule 31 of GSTAT (Anti-Profiteering Methodology and Procedure) Rules, 2025 - The Respondent sought deletion of the GST component from the amount directed to be refunded, contending that it was already deposited with the GST Department and that refund would result in double recovery - Whether the GST component included in the profiteered amount can be removed from the original order by way of rectification - HELD - The contention was considered and adjudicated in the original order, which specifically examined the computation of the profiteered amount. The profiteered amount was computed exclusive of GST whereas the Respondent had collected the total consideration from the homebuyers inclusive of GST. The amount realised therefore included the GST attributable to the additional amount collected. Payment of GST to the Government does not absolve the Respondent of its separate statutory obligation under Section 171 of CGST Act to pass on the benefit of additional ITC. The Respondent conflated its tax-payment obligation with its obligation to pass on the benefit to the homebuyers. Rule 31 does not permit a concluded issue to be reopened merely because a party seeks a different outcome - The request for deletion of the GST component is rejected - Rectification on the basis of a subsequent order in another case - Rule 31 of GSTAT (Anti-Profiteering Methodology and Procedure) Rules, 2025 - The Respondent relied on a subsequent order passed by the Tribunal in a separate matter and sought similar relief by modification of the original order - Whether the subsequent order warrants rectification or modification of the original order - HELD - The subsequent order was passed in separate proceedings on the facts of another case and was not a decision placed before the Tribunal when the original order was passed. It cannot establish that the Tribunal committed a mistake or omitted to consider material available on the record. The power of rectification is not an unrestricted power to reconsider an adjudicated issue or to modify an order merely because a party subsequently relies upon a different decision. The material consideration is whether the alleged error is a manifest mistake apparent from the record. The Respondent did not demonstrate any such mistake - The request for rectification or modification on the basis of the subsequent order is rejected.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST Adjudication & Appeals Reform
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

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?