No Anti-Profiteering Violation Where Works Contract Fully Executed After GST Rollout: GSTAT Delhi

The Principal Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), New Delhi on 5 May closed anti-profiteering proceedings against Pune-based works contractor Belhekar & Kale Associates and held that no Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit required passing on since both procurement and execution of the contract took place after the rollout of GST.

Technical Member Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta accepted the investigation report of the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) and held that no contravention of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had been established. The Tribunal observed:

“despite sufficient opportunities having been afforded, the Applicant neither appeared before this Tribunal nor placed any written submissions on record, which means the applicant has nothing to say on the DGAP's report.”

The proceedings arose from a complaint filed by the Mumbai Port Trust Authority, which alleged that Belhekar & Kale Associates failed to pass on ITC benefits in a works contract for the “Modernization of MICT.”

The DGAP, in its report dated 21 January 2026, found that the authority floated the tender on 25 May 2017 in the pre-GST period, but issued the Letter of Acceptance on 8 August 2017 and commenced work on 3 February 2018, both after GST came into force on 1 July 2017.

It concluded that the contractor executed the entire project in the post-GST regime under a tax-inclusive tender, making any comparison of ITC between pre- and post-GST periods inapplicable. The DGAP also recorded that the Mumbai Port Trust Authority withheld Rs. 22.66 crore from the contractor's bills without legal authority, even though no procurement or execution had occurred in the pre-GST period.

The Tribunal noted the continued absence of the Mumbai Port Trust Authority and its failure to file written submissions, and proceeded on the basis of the DGAP findings. Relying on Paragraph 128(d) of the Delhi High Court's ruling in Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v. Union of India, it held that the contract price stood fixed with reference to the post-GST tax regime, and therefore no obligation to pass on ITC benefits arose.

Accordingly, the GSTAT accepted the DGAP report, held that Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 had not been contravened, and ordered closure of the proceedings.