Savaliya Procon Did Not Profiteer On Krish Elite Project, GSTAT Finds, As Its ITC-to-Purchase Ratio Fell From 6.55% To 5.77%

Shri Jayesh V. Rathod alleged that Savaliya Procon failed to pass on the benefit of input tax credit (ITC) in the price of a flat in its “Krish Elite” project after GST was introduced on 1 July 2017, contrary to Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Following an earlier investigation and subsequent remand by the Competition Commission of India for re-investigation in light of Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., the DGAP examined the period from June 2017 to June 2019.

The DGAP found that the ITC-to-purchase-value ratio decreased from 6.55% before GST to 5.77% after GST, and concluded that no additional ITC benefit had accrued to the respondent.

The respondent accepted the report, and the applicant stated by WhatsApp that he agreed with it.

1. Whether Savaliya Procon received an additional ITC benefit upon implementation of GST that it was required to pass on to customers under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017

2. Whether the DGAP’s re-investigation report concluding that Section 171 had not been contravened should be accepted

Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 requires a registered person to pass on to recipients, by a commensurate reduction in prices, the benefit of a reduction in tax rates or an input tax credit.

Rules 128 and 129 of the CGST Rules, 2017 provide the framework for making and examining anti-profiteering applications and for investigation by the DGAP.

The Tribunal also recorded that the matter had been remanded for re-investigation in view of the Delhi High Court’s decision in Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Tribunal relied on the DGAP’s comparison of the respondent’s ITC against its purchase value: the ratio fell from 6.55% in the pre-GST period to 5.77% in the post-GST period, indicating that no additional ITC benefit arose for the respondent to pass on.

It noted that the respondent accepted the DGAP’s methodology and findings, while the applicant also agreed with the report.

On that record, the Tribunal found no basis to conclude that the respondent had contravened Section 171.

It accepted the DGAP report dated 16 December 2025 and directed that a copy of the judgment be communicated to the concerned CGST/SGST Commissionerate and uploaded to the GSTAT portal.