9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 563 - HC - GSTProfiteering - constitutional validity of Section 171 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT - Mr. Rohatagi states that without prejudice to the rights of the contentions of the Petitioners the above undertaking would be abided by and the payment of the aforementioned sum would be made within 10 days from today the Central Consumer Welfare Fund subject to further orders of this Court. There shall be a stay of further proceedings against the Petitioners pursuant to the impugned order dated 5th March 2019 - List on 22nd August 2019.
Issues:
Challenge to NAPA order on incorrect invoices and penalty under CGST Act, Constitutional validity of Section 171 of CGST Act and CGST Rules, NAPA's authority to investigate pricing of all products, Similar challenges in other pending petitions. Analysis: The judgment involves a challenge to an order passed by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAPA) against Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and its Director. The NAPA found the petitioners in contravention of the Central GST provisions for issuing incorrect invoices, leading to an offense under Section 122(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017, and potential penalty under Rule 133(3)(d) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioners contested the NAPA's order on various grounds, including questioning the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the CGST Act and specific rules like Rule 126, 127, and 133 of the CGST Rules. Additionally, they raised concerns about the NAPA's authority to extend its investigation beyond the specific product mentioned in the complaint to all products of the petitioner, which they argued exceeded the NAPA's powers under the relevant rules. The court noted the existence of similar challenges in other petitions regarding the constitutional validity of the aforementioned provisions and NAPA's orders. Notably, the court acknowledged the petitioners' undertaking to pay the demanded amount along with applicable interest within a specified timeframe, provided there was no further investigation or penalty by the NAPA. This undertaking was made without prejudice to the petitioners' rights and subject to the Central Consumer Welfare Fund. Consequently, the court directed a stay on further proceedings against the petitioners based on the impugned NAPA order. Deadlines were set for filing replies and rejoinders, with the next hearing scheduled for a specific date. The order was to be made available under the signature of the Court Master for immediate action.
|
