Anti Profiteering case laws

Look up GST High Court, GSTAT, and advance-ruling decisions by topic — with a complete summary for each matter and the source judgment PDF when you need the full text.

1 ruling

High Court of Delhi28 Sept 2026Anti Profiteering

Lichfl Care Homes Ltd. v. Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

In favour of the revenue

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.

CGST S.171