New Delhi, Dec 16 (PTI) The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the Centre and Competition Commission of India to place on record their response filed on a plea by tech giant Apple Inc challenging CCI's direction to furnish the firm's audited financial statements for several years.

Apple has also challenged the amendment to the Competition Act, 2002, which allows Competition Commission of India (CCI) to impose penalties based on a company's global turnover.

A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was informed that the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs and CCI filed their counter affidavit on Monday in response to Apple's petition but it was not on record.

"Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents on Monday. Let steps be taken to bring the counter affidavit on record," the bench said.

It also granted time to Apple to file its rejoinder to the respondents' reply.

The court listed the matter for further hearing on January 27.

During the hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Apple Inc, submitted that they have received the copy of a joint reply of the ministry and CCI last night and urged the court to grant some time to file the rejoinder.

Meanwhile, the Alliance of Digital India Foundation told the court that it has filed an impleadment application in the matter as the organisation was the original informant and complainant in the case.

The court asked the parties to file their objections, if any, to the impleadment application within four weeks.

On December 1, the high court had issued notice to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and CCI on Apple's petition and asked them to file reply affidavits within a week.

In its petition, Apple said the effect of amended penalty provisions is that the turnover generated from all products or services of the enterprise can be aggregated for computation of the penalty, instead of the turnover generated from the affected "relevant product or services" of the enterprise.

It said after the amendment, the global turnover of an enterprise, generated from territories outside the jurisdiction of the CCI, can be considered for computation of the penalty, instead of the turnover of an enterprise as generated in the "relevant geographic market", that is, in the Indian market.

The plea said amended provision empowers the CCI to fine firms found guilty of abuse of dominance or anti-competitive conduct up to 10 per cent of its average turnover of preceding three financial years.

Apple stated that its maximum penalty exposure, that is, 10 per cent of its average global turnover derived from all of its products or services globally for financial years 2022 to 2024, could be around USD 38 billion.

The court had also sought to know from the government how penalties on global turnover could be justified even if the abuse of dominant position is with respect to one of the many products.

Senior advocate Balbir Singh, appearing for government and CCI, had responded that it was necessary so that an entity with no turnover in India can also be brought under the CCI net.

Claiming that Apple has filed the petition to "scuttle" the CCI probe against it, he had said the authorities have asked for only India turnover and not global turnover.

He had said the company has been asked to give the India turnover by December 8 after which it will take 3-4 weeks to examine the information. PTI SKV ZMN

Apple challenges an order to produce audited statements and a law allowing penalties based on aggregated global turnover. Apple Inc challenges a directive to furnish audited financial statements and an amendment allowing the Competition Commission of India to compute penalties using an enterprise's aggregated global turnover rather than turnover attributable to the affected relevant product or services or the relevant geographic market, arguing this permits inclusion of turnover from territories outside CCI jurisdiction and greatly increases potential penalty exposure; government and CCI have filed a response and the court allowed time for Apple's rejoinder and invited objections to an impleadment application.