No Anti-Profiteering Without ITC Benefit

Centax Editorial Board

February 17, 2026

• 2 min. read

Case Details: DGAP vs. Resizone Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2026) 39 Centax 142 (Tri.-GST-Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, President

Facts of the Case

The respondent-assessee was engaged in the real estate business. Complaints were filed alleging that the respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit (ITC) arising upon transition to the GST regime, in contravention of Section 171 of the CGST and the Delhi GST Act. The Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) conducted an investigation and submitted that the ratio of ‘credit availed’ to ‘purchase value’ in the pre-GST period was 5.4072 per cent, whereas in the post-GST period it was 5.3934 per cent, reflecting a difference of (-) 0.0138 per cent. It was submitted that there was no apparent savings accruing to the respondent on account of ITC in the post-GST period. The DGAP concluded that Section 171 had not been contravened. The complainants subsequently withdrew their complaints and stated that they had no further grievance. The matter was accordingly placed before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).

GSTAT Held

The GSTAT held that Section 171 mandates passing on of commensurate benefit only where additional ITC or tax reduction results in a benefit to the supplier. On examination of the DGAP’s report, the Tribunal noted that the comparative ITC ratios in the pre and post-GST periods did not indicate any incremental benefit accruing to the respondent. In the absence of any apparent savings and in view of the categorical finding of the DGAP that Section 171 was not contravened, the foundational requirement for anti-profiteering action was not satisfied. Taking note of the withdrawal of complaints and absence of surviving grievance, the Tribunal accepted the DGAP’s report and directed closure of the proceedings.