2019 (8) TMI 27 - HC - GST

Profiteering - case of the Petitioner is that it is a mere distributor of the products of M/s Patanjali Ayurveda Limited (PAL) and it is PAL which has increased its base price over which Petitioner has no control - HELD THAT - The Court is of the view that the Petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief. Subject to the Petitioner paying ₹ 3 lacs i.e. ₹ 1.5 lakhs to the CGST fund and ₹ 1.5 lakhs to SGST fund within four weeks on or before 31st August, 2019, the impugned order shall remain stayed - The penalty proceedings may go on but the outcome thereof will be subject to the result of this petition. List before the Joint Registrar on 17th September, 2019for completion of pleadings - List before the Court on 3rd February, 2020.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Interim relief against order of National Anti-Profiteering Authority regarding payment of a specified amount due to price increase by principal company.

Analysis:

1. Issue of Interim Relief:
The High Court considered the case where the Petitioner, a distributor of products of a specific company, was directed by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority to pay a certain amount due to an alleged increase in the base price by the principal company. The Court acknowledged the Petitioner's contention that the price increase was beyond their control as it was the principal company that had raised the base price. After evaluating the circumstances, the Court found that the Petitioner had established a prima facie case for the grant of interim relief. Consequently, the Court granted interim relief subject to the condition that the Petitioner pays a specified amount to the CGST and SGST funds within a stipulated timeframe. The Court ordered the impugned order to remain stayed upon compliance with the payment conditions.

2. Effect on Penalty Proceedings:
While allowing the interim relief, the Court clarified that the penalty proceedings against the Petitioner could continue. However, the final outcome of the penalty proceedings would be contingent upon the result of the ongoing petition. This decision indicates that the penalty proceedings would be influenced by the ultimate resolution of the present case.

3. Listing for Further Proceedings:
Furthermore, the Court directed the matter to be listed before the Joint Registrar for the completion of pleadings on a specified date. Additionally, a subsequent listing before the Court was scheduled for a later date to monitor the progress of the case. These directions ensure that the case moves forward systematically and allows for the timely resolution of the legal dispute.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment granted interim relief to the Petitioner against the order of the National Anti-Profiteering Authority, subject to specific payment conditions. The decision also clarified the impact of the interim relief on the penalty proceedings and provided a structured timeline for the further progression of the case.