The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the GSTAT’s determination of profiteering of Rs. 2,31,93,107 (including GST) against LICHFL Care Homes Ltd. in respect of its ‘Jeewan Anand’ residential project at Bhubaneswar, holding that the methodology adopted by the DGAP after the Reckitt Benckiser remand was materially different from the earlier rejected ITC-to-turnover methodology and was consistent with the specific direction in Paragraph 129 of Reckitt Benckiser. The ruling by Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain in WP(C) 13665/2026 (decided 28.09.2026) further held that CENVAT credit of Rs. 2,38,25,609 which was legally available but not actually availed during the pre-GST period (ST-3 returns showed NIL CENVAT credit) cannot be notionally treated as having reduced the pre-GST tax incidence — Section 171 is concerned with the benefit of ITC actually accruing to the supplier.
The court drew a critical distinction: the DGAP used purchase value (not turnover) to quantify the proportion of ITC available against project expenditure, and then divided the project-level saving by the total area to arrive at the per square foot benefit — precisely as Reckitt Benckiser directed. The Petitioner’s contention that the DGAP merely substituted ‘purchase value’ for ‘turnover’ was held to proceed on an incomplete reading of the judgment. On the pre-GST CENVAT point, the court held that comparing actual post-GST benefit with a hypothetical pre-GST benefit was impermissible; the anti-profiteering determination must proceed on the economic benefit which actually accrued under the respective tax regimes. The Petitioner’s without-prejudice alternative computation of Rs. 1,39,93,358 was held not to be a conclusive admission, but the substantive determination rested independently on the DGAP’s computation.
- 2026-juristway.com-2674-HC(Delhi)-GST | High Court of Delhi | W.P.(C) 13665/2026 | 28.09.2026