Anti profiteering after the transition from the NAA: where the cases now go
The authority changed twice and the sunset has arrived. The pending cases have not gone away.
Section 171 requires that any reduction in the rate of tax or the benefit of input tax credit be passed on to the recipient by a commensurate reduction in prices. The National Anti-profiteering Authority was wound up and its functions transferred to the Competition Commission of India with effect from 1 December 2022, and the examination of anti profiteering matters was later assigned to the Principal Bench of the Appellate Tribunal. A sunset was notified so that no new applications are examined in respect of supplies after the notified date, while pending matters continue.
The transition, in sequence
The NAA examined complaints until it was wound up. Its functions were transferred to the Competition Commission of India from 1 December 2022.
The examination of anti profiteering matters was subsequently assigned to the Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, which now hears them.
A sunset date was notified after which no new applications in respect of anti profiteering are examined. Pending proceedings, and proceedings arising from investigations already initiated, continue.
Verify the notified dates against the current position for the period and the complaint in your matter, because the sequence of notifications is intricate.
The recurring disputes
Methodology. Section 171 does not prescribe a method of computation, and the absence of a prescribed methodology has been the central challenge. The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 171 and the associated rules while addressing the methodology question, and individual computations continue to be contested.
Unit of comparison. Whether the comparison is at the level of a product, a stock keeping unit, a project, or an entity determines the outcome, and the department's preferred unit is usually the most granular.
Real estate. Anti profiteering in construction projects, where the credit position changed with the rate structure, produced the largest and most complex computations, and the treatment of unsold inventory and of the timing of credit is heavily contested.
Passing on. Whether a reduction passed on through a larger pack, an additional quantity, or a discount satisfies Section 171, as against a reduction in the printed price.
How to defend a matter
Build the price comparison yourself, at the unit of comparison you contend is correct, with the source data. A respondent who arrives without its own computation defends the investigating authority's.
Document the commercial reasons for every price movement in the period — input cost, freight, packaging, competitive action — with contemporaneous evidence.
Establish the credit position with the returns and the reconciliations, because the benefit alleged is usually computed from credit.
Take the methodology point, but do not rest on it alone; the computation must also be answered on its own terms.
Authorities relied on
Upheld the constitutional validity of Section 171 and the anti profiteering machinery, while addressing the challenges to methodology and to the absence of a prescribed formula; individual computations remain open to challenge.
What to do on Monday
Maintain a contemporaneous price change file with the commercial reason for every movement, sector by sector and product by product.
Prepare your own computation at the unit of comparison you contend for, with the source data.
Reconcile the credit position for the period with the returns before the hearing.
Verify the current forum and the notified sunset dates for the period of your matter.
This page states the general position. A reader with a specific question on their own facts may write to the GST practice at AMLEGALS.
Write to the GST practiceQuestions we are asked on this
Can a new anti profiteering complaint be filed today?
A sunset date has been notified after which new applications are not examined. Verify the notified date for the period in question.
Who hears pending matters?
The Principal Bench of the Appellate Tribunal, following the transfer from the Competition Commission of India.
Is there a prescribed method of computation?
No formula is prescribed, which is why the unit of comparison and the treatment of credit are the battleground in every matter.
Does passing on a benefit through additional quantity satisfy Section 171?
It is contested. Document the decision and the commercial equivalence at the time it is taken.
Is a rate reduction the only trigger?
No. The benefit of input tax credit is the other trigger, and it is the basis of most real estate matters.
In this cluster
- GST appeals in 2026: the complete route from DRC-07 to the Supreme Court
- GSTAT appeals in 2026: limitation, pre deposit and the filing discipline that survives scrutiny
- Pre-deposit under Sections 107 and 112: the corrected arithmetic
- Penalty only demands and the pre-deposit for appeal
- Condonation of delay in GST appeals: what persuades, and what does not
- Drafting grounds of appeal in GST: the structure that wins
- GSTAT Procedure Rules, 2025: the practitioner's walkthrough
- Stay of recovery pending appeal: Section 107(7) and beyond
- Additional evidence before the appellate authority under Rule 112
- Departmental appeals and the review mechanism under Section 107(2)
GST Insights is published by AMLEGALS for general information. Law stated as on 3 September 2026. Not advice on any particular set of facts; not an advertisement or a solicitation under Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules. Readers with a question on their own facts may write to the GST practice of their own accord.