2020 (2) TMI 622 - HC - GST

Grant of interim relief - the impugned order of the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAPA), Respondent No. 2 herein, was passed not pursuant to any written complaint, as is mandated by law, but by the NAPA suo moto assuming jurisdiction - HELD THAT - The Court is of the view that the Petitioners have made out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim relief as prayed for and that the balance of convenience in granting interim relief is also in the favour of the Petitioners. Till the next date of hearing, there shall be a stay on the impugned order dated 10th December, 2019 of the NAPA - List before Roster Bench on 20th May, 2020.

Summary

Issues:

1. Jurisdiction of the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAPA) to pass orders suo moto without a written complaint.
2. Validity of an order pronounced by the NAPA with only three out of four members signing it.
3. Delay in passing the impugned order beyond the mandatory three-month period.
4. Amount asked to be deposited by the Petitioner and the amount already deposited.
5. Grant of interim relief and balance of convenience in favor of the Petitioners.

Jurisdiction of NAPA:
The Petitioners contended that the NAPA, Respondent No. 2, passed the impugned order without a written complaint, contrary to the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Petitioners argued that the NAPA lacked the authority to assume jurisdiction suo moto. The Court acknowledged this argument as a prima facie case, supporting the grant of interim relief in favor of the Petitioners.

Validity of NAPA's Order:
Another submission by the Petitioners highlighted that the NAPA order was pronounced with only three out of four members signing it, raising concerns about its validity. The Court considered this issue along with the other submissions made by the Petitioners in support of granting interim relief.

Delay in Passing Order:
The Petitioners also raised the issue of the delay in passing the impugned order, which exceeded the mandatory three-month period from the receipt of the investigation report. This delay was a factor considered by the Court in granting interim relief and staying further proceedings related to the impugned order.

Amount Deposited by Petitioner:
Regarding the amount demanded to be deposited by the Petitioner as per the impugned order, the Court noted that a significant portion had already been deposited. This fact was taken into account in the Court's decision to grant interim relief and stay the impugned order until the next date of hearing.

Grant of Interim Relief:
After considering the submissions made by the Petitioners and evaluating the balance of convenience, the Court concluded that the Petitioners had made out a prima facie case for the grant of interim relief. Consequently, the Court ordered a stay on the impugned order dated 10th December, 2019, issued by the NAPA in Case No. 70/2019, and all further proceedings related to the impugned order were also stayed until the next hearing scheduled before the Roster Bench on 20th May, 2020.