TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Delhi HC Limits Inquiry Scope in Anti-Profiteering Case</h1> <h3>Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited Versus Union of India Through: Its Secretary & Ors.</h3> Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited Versus Union of India Through: Its Secretary & Ors. - 2020 (36) G. S. T. L. J74 (Del.)] Issues: Challenge to inquiry by National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAPA) and vires of Section 171 of the CGST Act.In this judgment by the Delhi High Court, the petitioner challenged an inquiry by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAPA) regarding one of their products, Dettol HW Liquid Original 900 ml. The petitioner objected to the Director General of Anti Profiteering (DGAP) seeking information on all their products, approximately 3500 in number, without a report on the complained product and an order from NAPA as required by Rule 133(5)(a) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules 2017 (CGST Rules). The petitioner also challenged the validity of Section 171 of the CGST Act and Rule 133(5)(a) of the CGST Rules. The Court found a prima facie case for limited interim relief and directed that the petitioner need only provide information on the complained product until the next date, allowing NAPA's inquiry on that product to proceed. The case was listed for further proceedings on 22nd August 2019.The judgment highlighted the importance of following the procedural requirements under the CGST Rules, particularly Rule 133(5)(a), before initiating inquiries into multiple products of a petitioner. The Court's decision to grant limited interim relief signifies a recognition of the petitioner's concerns regarding the breadth of the information sought by the DGAP without the necessary steps being taken by NAPA as mandated by the rules. The challenge to the vires of Section 171 of the CGST Act and related rules adds a layer of complexity to the case, indicating a broader legal debate on the authority and scope of anti-profiteering measures under the GST regime. The directive to provide information only on the specific complained product showcases a balanced approach by the Court, ensuring compliance with the law while addressing the petitioner's grievances regarding the inquiry process. This judgment sets a precedent for ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to statutory provisions in anti-profiteering investigations, emphasizing the need for legal clarity and due process in such matters.
TaxTMI 