Lichfl Care Homes Ltd. v. Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
In favour of the revenue
The ruling in brief
LICHFL Care Homes Ltd. sought writ relief before the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) No. 13665 of 2026, 28 September 2026) against anti-profiteering findings on a residential project. Section 171 CGST requires passing ITC or rate benefit to buyers. On remand, the DGAP had quantified benefit using purchase value against project cost with area-wise distribution, conforming to remand directions and differing from an earlier rejected method. The High Court (Jain and Kshetarpal JJ) found no jurisdictional error in the GSTAT order upholding that report and declined interference. Outcome favoured revenue. Remanded anti-profiteering proceedings must follow directed methodology; courts defer to GSTAT when remand terms are met. This note is published for Chartered Universe GST case-law research and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full order, confirm the decision date and citation, and assess whether later statutory changes affect reliance before advising clients or filing appeals.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.171 — Anti-profiteering; passing ITC/rate benefit to recipients.
Source documents
Similar rulings
See the decision
v. Maruti Developers
In NAPA No. 156 (PB.) of 2025 (18 September 2026), the GST Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi dealt with Maruti Developers’ residential project where additional post-GST ITC benefit was not passed to homebuyers. Under Section 171 CGST and Rules 126 and 133, the DGAP recomputed profiteering after properly excluding reversed unutilised ITC from the benefit calculation. The Tribunal accepted that methodology and the revised profiteered amount of about Rs 2.62 lakh, directing the developer to pass it on with 18% interest to eligible buyers. Outcome aligns with revenue on quantification and pass-through obligation. The case illustrates that unutilised ITC reversals must be factored into anti-profiteering arithmetic; editorial summary for CAs, not advice on specific projects. This note is published for Chartered Universe GST case-law research and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full order, confirm the decision date and citation, and assess whether later statutory changes affect reliance before advising clients or filing appeals.
In favour of the assessee
Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Vertex Homes (P.) Ltd
The GST Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NAPA No. 87 (PB) of 2025, 2 September 2026), reviewed whether Vertex Homes Pvt. Ltd. profiteered by retaining post-GST ITC benefit on a construction project. A homebuyer had complained; the developer evidenced significant escalation in input costs after GST, particularly in ready-mix concrete, sand and bricks. The Tribunal held the DGAP methodology that accounted for post-GST input cost increases was legally sound and that those cost rises had offset the additional ITC, so the developer did not breach Section 171 CGST or Rules 126 and 129. The DGAP report was accepted. Outcome favoured the assessee developer. Anti-profiteering analysis is net of eligible cost escalation, not ITC gain alone. This note is published for Chartered Universe GST case-law research and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full order, confirm the decision date and citation, and assess whether later statutory changes affect reliance before advising clients or filing appeals.
In favour of the revenue
DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, DGAP v. Maata Rani Builders and Developers
In NAPA No. 54 (PB) of 2025 (29 July 2026), the GST Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi confirmed anti-profiteering liability of Maata Rani Builders and Developers for the Anamika Apartment project. Under Section 171 CGST and Rule 133, benefit of additional ITC must reduce prices to recipients. The builder offered some extra construction free of cost but did not reflect the ITC benefit as an actual price reduction on flats. The Tribunal accepted the DGAP’s computation and methodology, holding the developer liable to pass on Rs 99,435 with applicable GST and interest to affected homebuyers. Outcome favoured revenue. Freebies or add-on work do not substitute for the statutory pass-through of ITC benefit; quantification followed DGAP’s accepted approach. This note is published for Chartered Universe GST case-law research and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full order, confirm the decision date and citation, and assess whether later statutory changes affect reliance before advising clients or filing appeals.
In favour of the revenue
DG Anti Profiteering v. Emaar India Ltd
The GST Appellate Tribunal (NAPA No. 153 (PB) of 2025, 6 July 2026) addressed methodology in DGAP proceedings against Emaar India Ltd. under Section 171 CGST and Rules 126 and 133. For residential projects, the Tribunal validated computing ITC benefit using pre-GST and post-GST credit-to-cost ratios at project level, with area-wise allocation among units. It stressed that the benefit must accrue uniformly to all similarly placed buyers and cannot be restricted to amounts received from individual purchasers. This clarifies how profiteering amounts are spread across a project when rate or ITC changes occur. Outcome favoured revenue on methodological points relevant to quantification. Developers and CAs auditing pass-through should apply consistent project-wide allocation rather than buyer-by-buyer caps. This note is published for Chartered Universe GST case-law research and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full order, confirm the decision date and citation, and assess whether later statutory changes affect reliance before advising clients or filing appeals.
In favour of the revenue
DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, DGAP v. Townpark Buildcon (P.) Ltd
The GST Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NAPA No. 80 (PB) of 2025, 2 July 2026), heard the Director General of Anti-Profiteering against Townpark Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., a real estate developer. Section 171 CGST and Rules 126 and 133 require passing on commensurate benefit of rate or ITC reduction to recipients. The developer did not dispute that additional ITC benefit after GST rate changes was not fully passed to 149 homebuyers who booked before issuance of the occupancy certificate. The DGAP’s project-level computation of the profiteered amount up to the certificate date was upheld. The Tribunal directed refund of the remaining profiteered sum, including GST, to affected buyers under the anti-profiteering framework. Outcome favoured revenue. Developers should align pre-OC pricing with accepted DGAP methodology at project level.