No Profiteering Found After Multiple DGAP Investigations | GSTAT

Case Details: DGAP vs. Nirma Ltd. - [2025] 179 taxmann.com 693 (GSTAT-NEW DELHI)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Mayank Kumar Jain, Judicial Member
• Diwakar Sharma, Inspector for the Applicant.

Facts of the Case

The applicant, Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), conducted investigations following a reference from the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) standing committee. The probe addressed allegations that the respondent had not passed on the benefit of the tax rate reduction. The applicant, under the directions of higher authorities, concluded that the respondent had not contravened section 171(1) of the CGST Act and Delhi GST Act, and filed the application seeking acceptance of its report. The matter was accordingly placed before the GST Appellate Authority (GSTAT).

GSTAT Held

The GSTAT held that DGAP had conducted repeated investigations and consistently concluded that there was no breach of anti-profiteering obligations. The authority observed that the statutory provisions under Section 171(1) were correctly interpreted and applied in arriving at the findings. The contentions regarding alleged non-passing of benefits were analysed in light of the investigations, and no contravention was found. Consequently, the DGAP report was accepted, and GSTAT directed that it be accepted in full, confirming that no profiteering had occurred.

List of Cases Referred to

• Reckitt Benckiser India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2024] 158 taxmann.com 675/102 GST 495/82 GSTL 344 (Delhi) (para 8).