2021 (3) TMI 639 - HC - GST

Court upholds status quo in GST adjustment case under Section 171: Petitioner seeks consumer benefits, respondent opposes. Next hearing 29.04.2021.

Gillette India Ltd. Versus Union Of India & Ors.

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, ... Profiteering - Revenue contends that the kind of adjustment, alluded to on behalf of the petitioner, is not contemplated under the provisions of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Till such time the respondents file their return, status quo, as obtaining today, should be maintained for the reason that a coordinate Bench, vide aforementioned order, i.e., order dated 18.02.2020, has taken a similar view, albeit, at the interim stage. It is ordered accordingly. List the matter on 29.04.2021. 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, 2017The 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-ProfiteeringThe 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 orderAfter 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.