Case Details: DGAP vs. Pacifica Developers (P.) Ltd. - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 88 (GSTAT-NEW DELHI)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Anil Kumar Gupta, Technical Member
Facts of the Case
The applicant, a homebuyer, submitted that the developer failed to pass on the benefit of additional input tax credit (ITC) in respect of construction services supplied. The Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) conducted a re-investigation and observed that the credit-to-purchase ratio for the respondent was 7.09 percent in the pre-GST period and 6.44 percent in the post-GST period, indicating a decrease of 0.65 percent. It concluded that no additional ITC benefit had accrued to the respondent, and the applicant contended that the benefit should be passed on. The matter was accordingly placed before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Authority (GSTAT).
GSTAT Held
The GSTAT held that since the credit-to-purchase ratio had decreased in the post-GST period, no additional ITC benefit had accrued to the respondent and, therefore, no benefit was required to be passed on to the applicant. It was noted that the DGAP report had correctly applied the methodology to assess the ITC benefit, with no errors in calculation or approach. The report was accepted, recording no contravention of Section 171 of the CGST Act and the Delhi GST Act, and the applicant’s contentions were rejected, upholding the respondent’s compliance with anti-profiteering provisions.
List of Cases Referred to
- Reckitt Benckiser India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2024] 158 taxmann.com 675/102 GST 495/82 GSTL 344 (Delhi) (para 2).
The post No Anti-Profiteering as ITC Ratio Fell Post-GST | GSTAT appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
