Anti-profiteering recovery stay continued; court prima facie treated the Rule 133 time limit as directory.

Interim protection against recovery in anti-profiteering proceedings was continued pending adjudication of the challenge, with the Court noting that a substantial amount had already been deposited. The Court also expressed a prima facie view that the six-month period for passing an order under Rule 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017 appears directory rather than mandatory, because neither the CGST Act nor the Rules prescribe a consequence for non-compliance with that time limit. The limitation issue was not finally decided, and the notice on the application was issued.

---

---

Issues: Whether the interim stay on recovery of the balance amount should be continued pending adjudication of the challenge to the anti-profiteering proceedings; and whether the six-month period for passing an order under Rule 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017 is directory or mandatory.

Analysis: The Court continued the interim protection against recovery, noting that a substantial amount had already been deposited. It also recorded a prima facie view that the six-month period prescribed in Rule 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017 appears to be directory, as neither the CGST Act nor the Rules prescribe any consequence for non-compliance with that time period.

Outcome: Interim stay on recovery was continued and notice was issued on the application; the limitation issue was only expressed prima facie and was not finally adjudicated.

---