TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1529
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ittal & Mr. Mayank, Advs for UOI. Mr. Abhishek Saket, SPCG with Mr. Manish Madhukar, Mr. Abhigyan, Ms. Amruta Padhi & Ms. Reya Paul, Advs. (M: 8376800073) for UOI. Mr Zoheb Hossain, Mr Sanjeev Menon, Mr. Vivek Gurnani & Ms. Pranjal Tripathi, Advs. for NAA/CCI/DGPA. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 26240/2022 (for Exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 8705/2022 & CM APPL. 26239/2022 3. The present petitions have been filed by the Petitioner challenging Section 171 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, 'the Act, 2017') and the corresponding Rules 126, 127, 128, 129, 133 and 137 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re introduced into the GST law, to ensure that the benefit of reduction in rates of GST or the benefit of input tax credit would be passed on to the consumer by way of commensurate reduction in the rate/price. The Anti-Profiteering measures were thus meant to be in public interest to avoid unjust enrichment of manufacturers, retailers and other goods and service providers. 9. The case of the Petitioner is that its services attracted higher taxation with effect from 15th November, 2017 i.e. the same increased from 15% to 18%. Thus, there was no occasion to pass on any benefit of input tax credit to the consumers. 10. However, the case of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (hereinafter, 'the Department') is to the contrary. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urrounding complexity in the supply chain cannot be permitted to defeat the objective of a consumer welfare regulatory measure and it is in this light that the subject provision is required to be construed. 161. In the context of similar powers of investigation exercised by the Director General under the Competition Act, 2002, the Supreme Court in Excel Crop Care Ltd. vs. Competition Commission of India, (2017) 8 SCC 47, has held that the Director General would be well within its powers to investigate and report on matters not covered by the complaint or the reference order of the Commission, and an interpretation to the contrary would render the entire purpose of investigation nugatory. The High Court of Delhi in Cadila Healthcare....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uction stands offset, skewed input credit situations etc. However, the remedy for the same is to set aside such orders on merits. What will be struck down in such cases will not be the provision itself which invests such power on the concerned authority but the erroneous application of the power." 12. Thus, insofar as the prayer for striking down the said provisions of the Act, 2017 and Rules, 2017 is concerned, the same would no longer survive before this Court. 13. On facts, however, the matters have to be examined separately. Before proceeding to do so, it would be relevant to note that the NAPA, which was originally notified under the Act, 2017 was thereafter substituted by the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter, 'CCI') ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A PAL SINGH, Director 15. The Court is now informed that the Anti Profiteering Wing of the Principal Bench of GST Appellate Tribunal has now been constituted and is looking into Anti Profiteering matters. 16. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that vide another Notification No. 19/2024- Central Tax issued on 30th September, 2024, the cut off date has been fixed as 01st April, 2025, as the date from which the Authority referred to in Section 171 of the Act, 2017, is not to accept any request for examination of anti-profiteering. Thus, it is only complaints prior to 01st April, 2025 that can be considered by the Principal Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal, insofar as anti-profiteering complaints are concerned. 17. Comin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6th August, 2021 submitted by the DGAP, which had calculated the entire amount on the basis of a complaint which was submitted by one Mr. Sumit Garg. 20. This Court is of the opinion that the GST Appellate Tribunal, having now been vested with the function of NAPA, and the fact that GST rates had in fact increased in the case of the Petitioner, the question of profiteering deserves to be re-looked at, to examine the factual matrix as to whether there was any actual profiteering at all or whether the Investigation Report dated 6th August, 2021 submitted by the Directorate General of Anti Profiteering was based merely on conjecture or surmise. 21. In view of the above, this Court of the opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded to....