No Profiteering Found in Mumbai Port Trust Modernization Case:

Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal held that Belhekar & Kale Associates did not violate anti-profiteering provisions under Section 171 of the CGST Act, as the entire contract was executed in the post-GST period.

GSTAT closes anti-profiteering proceedings after finding no violation of Section 171 of the CGST Act.

Aishwarya Singh

May 14, 2026

Last update on May 14, 2026

No Profiteering Found in Mumbai Port Trust Modernization Case The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal looked into claims that Belhekar & Kale Associates made unfair profits during the modernisation of the Mumbai International Cruise Terminal for the Mumbai Port Trust Authority. The main complaint was that they didn’t pass along the Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit, allegedly violating Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017. The case got sent to the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) for a closer look. Their investigation found something pretty straightforward: while the tender came out before GST kicked in, both the final agreement and all the actual work happened after GST became law. Since nothing happened under the old tax system, the DGAP said it just didn’t make sense to compare ITC benefits from before and after GST. So, they found no proof of profiteering here. Meanwhile, the person who filed the complaint didn’t show up for the hearings or even bother to file objections, despite being given several chances. The Tribunal leaned on the DGAP’s findings and also referenced the Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v. Union of India judgment, which says that if everything about a contract falls under the GST era, then the GST rules are already factored in. With that in mind, the Tribunal agreed no ITC benefit had to be passed on. They ruled there was no violation of Section 171 of the CGST Act and closed the case.