GSTAT Finds No Profiteering by Samridhi Realty as Excess ITC Benefit Passed to Homebuyers

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has held that Samridhi Realty Pvt. Ltd. did not indulge in profiteering under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as it had already passed on input tax credit (ITC) benefits to homebuyers in excess of the required amount. The Tribunal accepted the report of the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) and closed the proceedings, finding no contravention of law.

The case arose from a complaint filed by Abha Tiwari under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017, alleging that the developer failed to pass on ITC benefits through commensurate reduction in prices for a flat purchased in the project “Samridhi Grand Avenue” in Greater Noida West. Another homebuyer, Hitesh Kumar Chauhaun, was later impleaded after raising similar allegations during the investigation.

Following investigation, the DGAP examined the pre-GST and post-GST tax credit structure and found that the ratio of credit availed to purchase value increased from 10.03% in the pre-GST period to 14.22% post-GST, indicating an additional ITC benefit of 4.19%. Based on this differential, the total profiteering amount was computed at ₹5.88 crore, along with GST of ₹70.63 lakh.

However, as reflected in the tabulated findings on pages 6 and 7 of the order, the DGAP noted that the developer had already passed on ITC benefits amounting to ₹16.45 crore to 935 homebuyers—substantially exceeding the computed profiteering amount. It was further observed that no ITC benefit was required to be passed on to 253 buyers who had purchased units after the issuance of the Occupation Certificate.

During the proceedings, the developer submitted that payments had already been made to the complainants. It stated that ₹46,012 had been paid to Hitesh Kumar Chauhaun, with the remaining ₹37,698 (including interest) to be paid, while ₹1,27,729 (including interest) was payable to Abha Tiwari. Both complainants accepted these calculations and confirmed receipt of ITC benefits through email communications, as recorded on page 8 of the order.

Taking note of these facts, the Tribunal observed that the complainants’ dues had been settled and acknowledged. It also noted that no other homebuyer had raised objections to the DGAP’s findings. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the DGAP report dated December 5, 2024 deserved acceptance and concluded that Samridhi Realty had complied with the statutory requirement of passing on ITC benefits. The proceedings were consequently closed.

The order was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Mayank Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Anil Kumar Gupta (Technical Member) on April 2, 2026.

Case Title: DG Anti-Profiteering v. Samridhi Realty Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: NAPA/150/PB/2025