[2026] 183 taxmann.com 405 (GSTAT - NEW DELHI)
GOODS AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NEW DELHI
DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti- Profiteering, DGAP vs Prateek Infraprojects India (P.) Ltd.*
ANIL KUMAR GUPTA, TECHNICAL MEMBER NAPA/105/PB/2025
FEBRUARY 3, 2026
Anti-profiteering measure - Input tax credit- Real estate - Period 1-7-2017 to 29-10-2018 - Applicant No. 1 and 2 respectively alleged profiteering in respect of construction services supplied by Respondent - A reference was received from Standing Committee to conduct an investigation - DGAP submitted initial report - Case was remanded back to DGAP for re- investigation in terms of High Court order - DGAP found that percentage ratio of ITC to purchase value had not increased in post-GST period when compared to pre-GST period percentage - Therefore, DGAP concluded that no benefit of additional ITC had accrued to respondent after introduction of GST - HELD : In view of above, investigation report of DGAP, wherein it had been concluded that there was no contravention of section 171 of CGST Act, was to be accepted [Section 171 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017] [Para 7] [In favour of assessee]
ORDER
The proceedings in the present case arise from a reference received from the Standing Committee on 24.01.2020, to conduct a investigation in respect of applications filed by Rajeev Goyal, D-42, Retreat Apartment, 20, I.P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi- 110092 and Sh. Ankush Goel, G 1115, Prateek Edifice, Sector-107, Noida- 201301 (hereinafter referred as Applicant No. 1 and 2 respectively), alleging profiteering in respect of construction services supplied by M/s Prateek Infraprojects India Pvt. Ltd., G-50, Lower Ground Floor, Lajpat Nagar - III, New Delhi-110024, (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent") for the Project "Prateek Edifice", situated at Sector-107, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
- The DGAP submitted its initial report to erstwhile NAA on 27.11.2020. Thereafter, erstwhile NAA vide
I.O. No. 08/2022 dated 27.07.2022 referred back the case and DGAP sent the re-investigation report on 14.02.2023 to the erstwhile Authority. The case was again referred back to DGAP vide I.O. No. 14/2023 dated 02.01.2024 for reinvestigation.
- Further, the CCI (then NAA) vide letter F.No. M/AP/28/Meeting/2023-24 Sectt./263-305 dated 20.03.2024 again remanded back the case to DGAP for re-investigation in terms of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi order dated 29.01.2024.
- The DGAP reinvestigated the matter in terms of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi order dated 29.01.2024 and submitted its report dated 04.06.2025 to Pr. Bench, GSTAT on 20.06.2025. The period covered by the current investigation is from 01.07.2017 to 29.10.2018.
- The DGAP vide the present report stated that percentage ratio of Credit Availed to Purchase Value in pre- GST period is 6.46 and in post- GST period is 2.70. The difference in the ratio is calculated as -3.76. Therefore, it was evident that percentage ratio of ITC to purchase value has not increased from pre-GST period to post-GST period. Therefore, DGAP concluded that no benefit of additional ITC has accrued to the Respondent after introduction of GST.
- A Notice dated 10.11.2025 was issued by email and speed post to the Applicants No. 1 & 2 with intimation to the Respondent to file written submissions on the report of the DGAP. However, no reply has been received from the Applicants No. 1 & 2 till date. Further, it is to mention that the Applicant No. 1 vide its letter/application dated 20.01.2025 sent vide email submitted that "the subject matter of the above mentioned complaint including other grievances of the Applicant raised in the consumer case filed and pending adjudication before the NCDRC has been fully settled mutually and amicably between the parties vide Settlement Deed dated 15.01.2025" and therefore the Applicant had no surviving grievance against the Respondent.
- Hearings in the matter were held on 09.01.2026 and 03.02.2026. Ms. Geetika Chib, Additional Assistant Director and Sh. Awanindra Kumar, Inspector appeared on behalf of the DGAP. Applicant No.2 has not filed any written submissions till date despite giving them sufficient opportunities. Similarly, the Respondent has also not filed any written submissions on the DGAP report till date. None appeared on the behalf of the Applicant No.2 as well as on behalf of the Respondent. Learned Advocate Shri Anshul Mishra appeared on behalf of Applicant No.1 and reiterated the submission made vide email dated 20.01.2025.
- In view of the above, the Tribunal accepts the investigation report dated 04.06.2025 of the DGAP wherein it has been concluded that there is no contravention of Section 171 of the CGST Act.
- The matter is disposed of, accordingly.
- A copy of this order be supplied to both the Applicants, the Respondent and to the concerned Commissioners CGST/SGST for necessary action.
- Order is pronounced in the open court today.