Case Details: DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti- Profiteering, DGAP vs. Prateek Infraprojects India (P.) Ltd. [2026] 183 taxmann.com 405 (GSTAT-NEW DELHI)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Anil Kumar Gupta, Technical Member
Facts of the Case
The applicant filed a reference alleging profiteering in respect of construction services supplied during the period from 01-07-2017 to 29-10-2018. The DGAP (Director General of Anti-Profiteering) submitted an initial investigation report, which was remanded for re-investigation by the High Court. The re-investigation found that the ITC-to-purchase value ratio post-GST had not increased compared to the pre-GST period, and no additional ITC benefit had accrued. The matter was accordingly placed before the GSTAT (Goods and Services Tax Appellate Authority).
GSTAT Held
The GSTAT held that DGAP’s re-investigation report was acceptable. The Court observed that, as the ITC-to-purchase value ratio had not increased post-GST, no additional ITC benefit was realised. Consequently, allegations of profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act and Delhi GSTAT were unsustainable. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no contravention of Section 171 and decided the matter accordingly.
The post No Profiteering Without Increase in ITC Ratio | GSTAT appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
