Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— Anti- Profiteering – The Applicant DGAP has reported that the Applicant No. 1 had alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the apartment purchased by him. The DGAP further submitted that the project “Lodha Primo” was launched in the post-GST era and there was no price history of the units sold in the pre-GST era which could be compared with the post-GST base price to determine whether there was any profiteering. Therefore, there was no pre-GST tax rate or ITC structure which could be compared with the post-GST tax rate and ITC. Hence, the DGAP has concluded that the provisions of Section 171 of the Act were not attracted in the present case. The authority observed that instant case does not fall under the ambit of Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171, therefore, the allegation that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of ITC in this case is not found sustainable.

Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority dismissed the application being not maintainable.