Identical Anti-Profiteering Allegations Cannot Be Reopened Again, Rules GSTAT:

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has held that no fresh anti-profiteering investigation can be initiated once the issue has already attained finality through earlier adjudication and subsequent affirmation by the High Court.

A Bench comprising Justice (Retd.) Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, President, and Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta dropped the proceedings initiated against SJP Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd in relation to its “Migsun Wynn” project.

The matter arose after the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) forwarded the minutes of the Standing Committee’s 65th meeting recommending a fresh investigation based on a complaint filed by homebuyer Navnit Kumar.

The DGAP informed the Tribunal that the same project had already been investigated earlier and a detailed report dated January 28, 2021 had quantified profiteering at Rs.6.87 crore, inclusive of GST, for the period from July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2019.

The erstwhile National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) had subsequently passed a final order on July 26, 2022 holding the developer liable for profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act. The order was later challenged before the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the writ petition filed by the developer.

During the proceedings, the complainant also sought unconditional withdrawal of his complaint stating that possession of the flat had already been handed over. The developer further placed on record a settlement deed executed between the parties.

“Once a matter has been fully and finally adjudicated upon by a competent authority and affirmed by a superior court, the same cannot be reopened based on a fresh complaint raising the same cause of action against the same Respondent for the same project and same period.”

The Tribunal observed that the profiteered amount attributable to the present complainant had already been included in the earlier investigation and adjudication. It held that permitting another investigation on the same issue would amount to reopening a matter that had already attained finality. “The present proceedings, being not maintainable, are hereby dropped.” Thus, the GSTAT held that no fresh investigation was required and directed the DGAP not to take any further action on the complaint.