Court Examines Anti-Profiteering Liability in CGST Case

The court issued notices in response to challenges against provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act and Rules 126, 128, and 133 of the CGST Rules. The petitioner, a franchisor with over 500 franchises in India, argued against liability for anti-profiteering. The court directed the petitioner to provide agreements with the foreign company holding the 'SUBWAY' trademark, details on franchise issuance authority, and agreements with franchises/sub-franchises in India. The court emphasized the need to establish legal frameworks governing franchisor-franchisee relationships to determine liability accurately, listing the matter for further hearing on 15th February 2021.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act and Rules 126, 128, and 133 of the CGST Rules.
2. Liability of franchisor for anti-profiteering concerning over 500 franchises in India.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The judgment pertains to a challenge against the provisions of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Rules 126, 128, and 133 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The court noted that the challenge is currently at the notice stage. Consequently, the court issued a notice regarding the challenge, which was accepted by the counsel for the respondents. The petitioner's counsel argued that as the franchisor, the petitioner cannot be held liable for anti-profiteering concerning over 500 franchises in India. The court directed the petitioner to submit the agreement with the foreign company holding the trademark 'SUBWAY' and the authority under which franchises are issued in India. Additionally, the petitioner was instructed to provide a sample agreement with the franchises/sub-franchises in India or make a statement to that effect before the next hearing scheduled for 15th February 2021.

Issue 2:
The second issue revolves around the liability of the franchisor for anti-profiteering activities related to numerous franchises in India. The petitioner contended that inquiries from the petitioner should not extend to all the over 500 franchises in the country. The court directed the petitioner to present relevant agreements and arrangements with the foreign company holding the trademark and the authority under which franchises are granted in India. This directive aimed to clarify the franchisor's role and responsibilities concerning the franchises. The court's decision to list the matter for the next hearing indicates the importance of establishing the legal framework and agreements governing the franchisor-franchisee relationships to determine liability accurately.

---