Discrepancy in Anti-Profiteering Authority Order Composition: Legal Challenge & Natural Justice Principles The challenge to the order passed by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority under the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017, due to a discrepancy in ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Discrepancy in Anti-Profiteering Authority Order Composition: Legal Challenge & Natural Justice Principles
The challenge to the order passed by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority under the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017, due to a discrepancy in the composition of members hearing the application was brought before the court. The petitioner argued that the order was invalid as it was passed by four members instead of the three who heard the application, violating natural justice principles. The respondents contended that the discrepancy was a procedural irregularity and not substantive, citing a Supreme Court decision. The court adjourned the matter for further arguments, maintaining any interim relief granted until the next hearing date.
Issues: Challenge to the order passed by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority under the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 due to the composition of the members hearing the application.
Analysis: The petition challenges the order dated 6th November, 2018, passed by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (Authority) under the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. It is contended that the order was passed by four members of the Authority, whereas the application was heard only by three members. The petitioner argues that this discrepancy violates the principle of natural justice. Citing precedents, the petitioner asserts that such an order is void due to the breach of natural justice principles. On the other hand, the respondents argue that the composition discrepancy is a procedural irregularity and not a substantive issue. They rely on a Supreme Court decision to support their stance, contending that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by having one additional member pass the order along with the three who heard the application.
The learned Counsel for the respondents requested time to present further arguments and supporting court decisions on the matter. Consequently, the petition was adjourned to 11th September, 2019, at 3.00 p.m. Any interim relief previously granted was ordered to continue until the next hearing date.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
