Anti-profiteering challenge secured interim protection as the court found a prima facie case and balance of convenience.

A writ challenge questioned the anti-profiteering framework under the CGST Act and Rules, including the authority's structure, the methodology for identifying profiteering, and the absence of appellate review. On the material then before the Delhi HC, the court found a prima facie case and the balance of convenience in favour of preserving the status quo, so coercive action was kept in abeyance pending final adjudication. Interim protection was linked to a deposit condition with the Central Consumer Welfare Fund, while the writ petition remained pending for further hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether interim stay should be granted against the anti-profiteering order and the consequential notice pending adjudication of the writ petition.

Analysis: The petition raised a constitutional challenge to the anti-profiteering framework under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, including the structure and functioning of the authority, the methodology for determining profiteering, and the absence of appellate review. On the materials then before the Court, a prima facie case was made out and the balance of convenience favoured interim protection. The Court therefore considered it appropriate to suspend coercive consequences on terms.

Conclusion: Interim stay was granted against the impugned order and the further proceedings pursuant to the notice, subject to deposit of Rs. 20 crores with the Central Consumer Welfare Fund within four weeks.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners obtained interim protection from the impugned anti-profiteering action, while the writ petition remained pending for further hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim relief may be granted where the petitioner establishes a prima facie case and the balance of convenience favours preservation of the status quo pending final adjudication.

---