The New Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal has closed anti-profiteering proceedings against Samridhi Realty Pvt. Ltd., accepting the Director General of Anti-Profiteering’s closure report after finding that the developer had already passed on input tax credit benefits to homebuyers far exceeding the amount required under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Justice Mayank Kumar Jain and Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta, disposing of the matter by order dated 2 April 2026, recorded that no contravention of the anti-profiteering provisions could be sustained in circumstances where the developer had demonstrably over-compensated its buyers.
The complaints had been filed by purchasers of flats in the “Samridhi Grand Avenue” project in Greater Noida West, alleging that the developer had failed to pass on additional ITC benefits arising from the transition to the GST regime from 1 July 2017. The proceedings had a layered procedural history — the DGAP conducted a reinvestigation pursuant to the Delhi High Court’s decision in Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, and upon recalculation found that while the developer had received an additional ITC benefit of 4.19 per cent in the post-GST period, the computed profiteering amount stood at Rs 6.59 crore. Against this figure, Samridhi Realty — represented by Chartered Accountant Ashish Vaish — had already passed on ITC benefits of Rs 16.45 crore to 935 homebuyers, resulting in an excess pass-through of Rs 9.86 crore over and above the statutory requirement.
During the hearing, the developer agreed to pay differential amounts along with interest to the two individual complainants, who acknowledged receipt of the recalculated benefits. No other homebuyer among the 935 recipients raised any objection to the DGAP’s closure report.
The outcome illustrates a relatively uncommon scenario in anti-profiteering jurisprudence — a developer that has not merely complied with the pass-through obligation but substantially exceeded it. For the real estate industry, the decision confirms that where a respondent can demonstrate through the DGAP’s own investigation that benefits passed on exceed the computed profiteering amount, proceedings will be closed without adverse findings, regardless of the initial complaint. It also highlights the practical effect of the Reckitt Benckiser reinvestigation framework, which in this instance produced a result entirely favourable to the developer upon recalculation.