Anti-profiteering recovery stayed subject to instalment deposits, while a narrower product-specific limit on relief was refused.

In a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the anti-profiteering provisions and connected rules, the Delhi HC dealt only with interim relief. It declined to confine protection from recovery to the amount computed for one product category, noting earlier orders in similar matters. Interim stay of recovery was granted, but only on the condition that the petitioner deposit the entire principal profiteered amount, excluding GST already deposited, in equal monthly instalments within the time allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interim stay of recovery should be granted in the writ petition challenging the vires of the anti-profiteering provisions and whether such stay should be confined to the amount computed only in respect of one product category.

Analysis: The challenge raised was to the constitutional validity of the anti-profiteering provision and the connected rules, but the order dealt only with interim relief. The Court declined to restrict the stay to the computation relating to one product category alone, taking note of earlier orders in similar matters. At the same time, it granted protection from recovery on the condition that the petitioner deposits the entire principal profiteered amount, excluding GST already deposited, in equal monthly instalments within the time allowed.

Conclusion: Interim stay of recovery was granted subject to deposit of the specified principal profiteered amount, and the request for a narrower stay was declined.

---