DGAP vs Savaliya Procon

GSTAT

Principal Bench at Delhi
Single Bench Court No. Court II
NAPA/236/PB/2025
DGAP, DG ANTI PROFITEERING, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
ANTI-PROFITEERING .............Appellant
Versus

SAVALIYA PROCON .............Respondent
Quorum
Hon’ble Justice Sh. Mayank Kumar Jain, Member (Judicial)
Counsel for Appellant Counsel for Respondent
Form GST APL-04A
[See rules 113(1) & 115]
Summary of the order and demand after issue of order by the GST Appellate Tribunal
whether remand order : No
Order reference no. : ZA070011026000186H Date of order : 22/10/2026
1. GSTIN/Temporary ID/UIN - 24ACSFS8319Q1Z3
2. Appeal Case Reference no. - NAPA/236/PB/2025 Date - 31/08/2021
3. Name of the appellant - DGAP , [email protected] , 011-23741544
Name of the respondent -
4.
1. Savaliya Procon , [email protected] , 079 40026060
5. Order appealed against -
Page 1 of 7

(5.1) Order Type -
(5.2) Ref Number - Date -
Personal Hearing - 22/10/2026 30/09/2026 15/09/2026 17/08/2026 20/07/2026
6.
08/06/2026 29/05/2026 08/04/2026 23/02/2026
7. Status of Order under Appeal - Confirmed – Order under Appeal is confirmed
8. Order in brief - The DGAP report dated 16.12.2025 is accepted
Summary of Order
9. Type of order : Closure Report
ORDER
Justice Mayank Kumar Jain, Judicial Member.
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The M/s. Savaliya Procon (hereinafter referred to as “ the
Respondent ”) is a company registered under the Central Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CGST Act, 2017’ )
th
having its place of business at 13 Floor, Office No. 1301, 1302, 1307
&1308, Krish Cubical, Avalon Hotel Road, Near Goverdhan Party Plot,
Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-380059. The Respondent is engaged in
the business of Construction Services.
2. The present proceedings arise from an application made by Shri Jayesh
V Rathod, R/O 303, Raman Rati Apartment, Saru Sectio Road,
Jamnagar, Gujarat-361006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Applicant’ )
under Rule 128 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017
Page 2 of 7

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the CGST Rules, 2017’ ) before the
Standing Committee on profiteering. It was alleged that the Respondent
was indulged in profiteering in respect of construction services
provided by him in their project “Krish Elite”.
3. The applicant alleged that the Respondent did not pass on the benefit
of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ITC’ ) to the
Applicant by way of commensurate reduction in the prices on purchase
of Flat in the project “Krish Elite” on the introduction of GST w.e.f.
01.07.2017, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017,
Investigation & Conclusion
4. The said application was examined by the Standing Committee on
Anti-Profiteering and same was referred to the Director General of
Anti-Profiteering (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DGAP’ ) under Rule
129(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 for detailed investigation.
5. The investigation was set into motion by the DGAP. Notice was issued
to the Respondent calling upon it to show cause whether the benefit of
the ITC had been passed on to the consumers by way of commensurate
reduction in prices, and if so, to suo-moto determine the quantum
thereof.

6. After investigation, the DGAP submitted its report dated 29.12.2020 to
the erstwhile Authority, National Anti-Profiteering Authority
(hereinafter referred to as “ NAA’ ).
7. The tenure of the NAA ended on 30.11.2022. Thereafter, the
Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as “the
CCI” ) was empowered to examine matters related to Anti-Profiteering
with effect from 01.12.2022 vide Notification No. 23/2022 - Central
Tax dated 23.11.2022.
Page 3 of 7

8. The CCI, vide its letter F. No. CCI/15/Vishwanath Legal/2023/511
dated 18.06.2025, remanded the matter back to the DGAP for re-
investigation in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors.,
(2024) 14 Centax 375 (Delhi).
9. Pursuant thereto, a Notice was issued by the DGAP to the Respondent
under Rule 129 of the CGST Rules, 2017, calling upon the Respondent
to reply as to whether they admit that the benefit of ITC had not been
passed on by them to their customers by way of commensurate
reduction in prices and, if so, to suo motu determine the quantum
thereof.
10. The period covered in the current investigation is from June, 2017 to
June, 2019.
11. The DGAP, after examining the record, found that the project "Krish
Elite" consists of 401 units including 266 residential and 135
commercial units. Out of 266 residential units, 129 units were booked
before the receipt of Building Use (for short, “BU”) Permission and
137 thereafter. Therefore, 129 units are considered for investigation.
Out of 135 commercial units, 46 units were booked before BU
Permission, 81 units thereafter, and 08 units remained unsold.
Therefore, 46 units are considered for investigation. Thus, only 175
units, having a saleable area of 7,160 Sq. Mtr. were taken into
consideration for the investigation,
12. The DGAP observed that the ratio of ITC to purchase value decreased
from 6.55% in the pre-GST period to 5.77% in the post-GST period.
Hence, no additional benefit of ITC was accrued to the Respondent
upon implementation of GST. Consequently, Section 171 of the CGST
Page 4 of 7

Act, 2017 was not contravened by the Respondent. The calculation is
shown in the table as:
S. No. Particulars Pre-GST Period (up
to 30.06.2017) (Rs.)
Post-GST Period
(01.07.2017 to
June 2019) (Rs.)
1 CENVAT of Service Tax
paid on input services
5,77,877/- —
2 Input Tax Credit of VAT
paid on purchase of inputs
0 —
3 Input Tax Credit of GST
availed
— 66,98,042/-
4 Total CENVAT/ITC of
VAT/ITC of GST
5,77,877/- 66,98,042/-
5 Total purchase value of
goods and services
88,27,408/- 11,61,18,783/-
6 Percentage/Ratio of the
input tax credit to the
purchase value
6.55% 5.77%

13. The Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as “GSTAT” ) constituted under sub-section (3)
of Section 109 of the CGST Act, 2017, has been empowered to examine
anti-profiteering cases with effect from 01.10.2024, vide Notification
No. 18/2024-Central Tax dated 30.09.2024. Consequent upon the
constitution of the GSTAT, the present proceedings are being
examined by this Tribunal.
14. The Respondent filed its Written Submissions that:
a) Respondent accepted the findings recorded in the aforesaid DGAP
Report, and it does not have any objection whatsoever to the
methodology adopted, factual findings recorded, computations made,
and conclusions arrived at by the DGAP in the said Report.
Page 5 of 7

b) Respondent had furnished the documents as demanded by the DGAP in
the course of investigation, including his books of accounts, GST
Returns, VAT Returns, ST-3 Returns, Input Tax Credit Registers, duly
certified by the Chartered Accountant.
c) DGAP has duly considered the material placed on record and has
categorically concluded that no additional benefit of Input Tax Credit
had accrued to the Respondent upon implementation of GST, and
consequently the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 were
not contravened by the Respondent.
d) The conclusions arrived at by the DGAP are based upon proper
appreciation of facts, records, statutory provisions and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, and therefore the said Report
may be accepted.

Conclusion & Findings
15. Heard the Shri Praveen Kumar, Learned Authorised Representative for
the DGAP and Shri Pratik D. Trivedi, Learned Advocate for the
Respondent.
16. The Respondent has accepted the DGAP Report in its entirety and has
not disputed any finding, computation or conclusion. The Respondent
has also stated that all documents were furnished during the
investigation and that the DGAP has correctly concluded that the
Respondent was not indulged in profiteering.
17. We made efforts to reach the Applicant to confront with the DGAP
report dated 16.12.2025. The office has sent information to the
Applicant through email, WhatsApp, GSTAT portal and registered
post. The applicant has responded only through WhatsApp and stated
that he is in agreement with the DGAP report.
Page 6 of 7

18. On the basis of re-calculation of the profiteering amount, the DGAP,
based upon the documents submitted by the Respondent indicating
actual saving incurred against the total procurement the DGAP arrived
at the conclusion that the Respondent has not contravened the provision
under section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
19. In view of the above, we find that the DGAP has rightly concluded that
no additional benefit of Input Tax Credit was accrued to the
Respondent. Therefore, Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 has not
been contravened by the Respondent. Since, no objection is raised by
the Applicant, therefore, the DGAP report dated 16.12.2025 deserves
to be accepted.
20. In view of the above, the DGAP Report dated 16.12.2025 deserves to
be accepted.
ORDER

21. Accordingly, the DGAP report dated 16.12.2025 is accepted.
22. Copy of the Judgment be communicated to the concerned CGST/SGST
Commissionerate for information and necessary action at their end.
23. Judgment pronounced in open Court.
24. The Judgment and Order be uploaded on the GSTAT portal.




(Justice Mayank Kumar Jain)
Page 7 of 7