Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Court upholds status quo in GST adjustment case under Section 171: Petitioner seeks consumer benefits, respondent opposes. Next hearing 29.04.2021. The Court maintained the status quo in a case involving the adjustment of profiteered amounts under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, ...
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.
Court upholds status quo in GST adjustment case under Section 171: Petitioner seeks consumer benefits, respondent opposes. Next hearing 29.04.2021.
The Court maintained the status quo in a case involving the adjustment of profiteered amounts under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued for adjustments to show benefits passed on to consumers, while the respondent contended that such adjustments were not required by the Act. The Court ordered to uphold the status quo until further proceedings, with the next hearing scheduled for 29.04.2021, directing the respondents to file a counter-affidavit and reply to the application within two weeks, and allowing the petitioner to submit a rejoinder before the next hearing.
Issues: 1. Adjustment of profiteered amount under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Contemplation of adjustments by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering. 3. Stay of the impugned order.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Adjustment of profiteered amount under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 The petitioner, represented by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, argued that the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) did not make necessary adjustments when comparing the average price of products with the selling price. They claimed that if adjustments were made, it would show the petitioner had transferred benefits worth approximately Rs. 61 crores to consumers. On the contrary, Mr. Zoheb Hossain for the respondent/Revenue contended that such adjustments were not envisaged under Section 171 of the Act. He asserted that the DGAP has the authority to calculate profiteered amounts for all types of goods.
Issue 2: Contemplation of adjustments by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering The contention between the parties revolved around whether the DGAP should make adjustments to the profiteered amount based on the selling price compared to the average base price. Mr. Rohatgi and Mr. Lakshmikumaran argued for adjustments to demonstrate benefits passed on to consumers, while Mr. Hossain emphasized that such adjustments were not mandated by the relevant provisions of the Act.
Issue 3: Stay of the impugned order After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court decided to maintain the status quo until the respondents filed their return. The Court noted that a previous order had taken a similar view at an interim stage. Therefore, the Court ordered that the status quo should be maintained until further developments. The matter was listed for the next hearing on 29.04.2021, with directions for the respondents to file a counter-affidavit and a reply to the interlocutory application within two weeks, allowing the petitioner to file a rejoinder before 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 
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
of 
TaxTMI 
