In the latest addition to the GSTAT's growing body of anti-profiteering jurisprudence, the Principal Bench has disposed of proceedings against Bengal Peerless Housing Development Company Limited after accepting the DGAP's Final Investigation Report showing that no additional ITC benefit accrued to the developer on implementation of GST in respect of its Digangana Housing Complex project in West Bengal. The order, passed by Member (Technical) A. Venu Prasad in NAPA/21/PB/2025 on 31.07.2026, illustrates both the methodology now governing real estate anti-profiteering assessments and the practical importance of accurate ITC-to-purchase-value ratio computation.

The matter had a long procedural history. It originated with complaints from two homebuyers regarding Bengal Peerless's "Digangana Housing Complex" project, leading to an interim order by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority in September 2022 directing investigation. Bengal Peerless — a joint venture between the West Bengal Housing Board and The Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited — challenged this interim order before the Calcutta High Court, which modified the interim protection while directing that no final order be passed without its leave. The case eventually reached the GST Appellate Tribunal after anti-profiteering jurisdiction was transferred to the Principal Bench with effect from 01.10.2024, and the Calcutta High Court thereafter directed the Tribunal to complete proceedings by 31.08.2026.

The DGAP, following remand and applying the methodology laid down by the Delhi High Court in Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, conducted a fresh investigation covering the period 01.07.2017 to 23.02.2021 (the date of the Final Occupancy Certificate). Of the project's 62 total units, 14 had been booked after the occupancy certificate and were excluded; the investigation covered the remaining 48 units with a saleable area of 41,233 square feet. The DGAP examined the pre-GST CENVAT credit, the transitional credit carried forward, and the post-GST ITC, all verified against statutory returns, books of accounts and a Chartered Accountant certificate.

The result was decisive: the ratio of eligible credit to purchase value was 10.44% in the pre-GST period and 10.08% in the post-GST period — a decline of 0.36%. Since the implementation of GST had not resulted in any additional ITC benefit accruing to the developer, there was nothing to pass on to homebuyers by way of commensurate price reduction. The Tribunal accepted this finding, noting that neither of the original complainants had appeared at any stage of the Tribunal proceedings. The anti-profiteering proceedings were disposed of with a finding of no contravention of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act.

The ruling underlines a point often overlooked in the anti-profiteering discourse: the obligation under Section 171 to pass on ITC benefits is contingent on an actual net increase in the ITC-to-purchase-value ratio post-GST. Where, as here, the ratio actually declines — whether because the project used fewer taxable inputs in the post-GST period or because the transitional credit base was low — the profiteering framework simply does not engage.

-2026-juristway.com-2119-GSTAT(New Delhi)-GST  |  GST Appellate Tribunal (Principal Bench)  |  31.07.2026