Petitioners get conditional interim relief against Section 171 CGST Act after depositing 50% profited amount

The Bombay HC granted conditional interim relief to petitioners challenging the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the CGST Act. The court noted that while petitioners objected to the authority's methodology and profit determination, they lacked appeal rights against such determinations. The HC ordered petitioners to deposit 50% of the profited amount (excluding interest) within 8 weeks as a condition for the interim stay, finding this arrangement would best serve justice interests.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to constitutional validity of Section 171 of the CGST Act and rules regarding National Anti-Profiteering Authority.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the CGST Act and certain rules related to the National Anti-Profiteering Authority. The petitioners argue that the impugned order directing them to deposit amounts with the prescribed authority contains serious errors, with profits being arbitrarily determined. The respondents cite a Delhi High Court decision rejecting similar challenges, arguing that the methodology chosen by the NAA was fair and reasonable. The petitioners seek interim relief from depositing the determined amount, claiming that the Delhi High Court had set aside determinations in similar cases and that an erroneous methodology was used in their case.

The Court acknowledges the authority's determination and the petitioners' objections to the methodology and profit determination. While the petitioners have no right of appeal against such determination, they seek interim relief. The Court deems it appropriate for the petitioners to deposit 50% of the profited amount mentioned in the impugned order within 8 weeks to grant conditional stay. Failure to deposit the amount would result in the vacation of the ad-interim relief without further reference to the Court.

Additionally, the Court extends the time for filing the affidavit in the main petition and for filing a rejoinder by six weeks each. The judgment balances the need for interim relief with the requirement for the petitioners to deposit a portion of the determined amount, taking into account the petitioners' objections to the methodology employed in determining profits. The Court's decision aims to serve the interests of justice by granting conditional relief while ensuring compliance with the deposit requirement.

---