HC Remanded Matter to Decide in Accordance With Ruling of Reckitt Benckiser as Method for Arriving at Profiteering Amount Was Not Correct

GST • News • Case Chronicles

Flawed Profiteering Calculation
Case Details: SAVALIYA PROCON Versus UNION OF INDIA (Tri.-Del)- (2025) 26 Centax 254 (Guj.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Bhargav D. Karia & D.N. Ray, JJ.
  • Shri Anand Nainawati for the Petitioner.
  • Shri Chirayu A. Mehta for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Gujarat High Court was hearing a writ filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA). The NAA had directed the applicant to pass on the benefit of the additional input tax credit to the recipients of the service. The matter was remanded to the CCI to decide in accordance with the ruling of Reckitt Benckiser as the method for arriving at the profiteering amount was not correct.

High Court Held

The Gujarat High Court held that the methodology adopted by the NAA and DGAP to arrive at the profiteering amount of the real estate industry was generally based on the difference between the ratio of Input Tax Credit to turnover under the pre-GST and post-GST period. This Court is in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners representing the real estate companies that the methodology adopted by NAA was flawed as in the real estate sector, there was no direct correlation between the turnover and the Input Tax Credit availed for a particular period. The expenses in a real estate project are not uniform throughout the life cycle of the project, and the eligibility of credit depends on the nature of the construction activity undertaken during the particular period. As it was an admitted position that neither the advances received nor the construction activity is uniform throughout the life cycle of the project, the accrual of Input Tax Credit was not related to the amount collected from the buyers. This Court was in agreement with the learned counsel of the petitioners that one needs to calculate the total savings on account of the introduction of GST for each project and then divide the same by the total area to arrive at the per square feet benefit to be passed on to each flat buyer. This would ensure that flat-buyers with equal square feet area received equal benefit.

List of Cases Cited

  • Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — [2024] 158 taxmann.com 675 (Delhi), — Relied on

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
Govt Issues FAQs-2 on Decisions of 56th GST Council

GST • News • Statutory Scope

September 18, 2025

HC Rules Fraudulent ITC via OTP Misuse Needs Police Probe

GST • News • Case Chronicles

September 18, 2025

HC Restores GST Registration Subject to Filing Returns and Clearing Dues

GST • News • Case Chronicles

September 17, 2025

GST on Post-Sale Discounts – CBIC Circular 251/2025 Clarification

GST • News • Statutory Scope

September 16, 2025

HC Rules Proceedings Against Deceased Assessee A Nullity

GST • News • Case Chronicles

September 15, 2025

Writ Admission Without Interim Order Does Not Halt GST Proceedings | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

September 12, 2025

GSTN Prohibits Filing of GST Returns After Three Years From Due Date

GST • News • Statutory Scope

September 12, 2025

New GST Rates to Impact Heavy Industries and Related Sectors

GST • News • Statutory Scope

September 10, 2025

Bauxite Handling for SEZ Unit Treated as Zero-Rated Supply | AAR

GST • News • Case Chronicles

September 9, 2025

Matter Remanded as SCN Uploaded Without Assessee’s Knowledge| HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

September 8, 2025