9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 837 - HC - GSTProfiteering - vires of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 and Rules 122, 126, 127 and 133 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - Keeping in view the orders passed by this Court in PHILLIPS INDIA LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2020 (6) TMI 626 - DELHI HIGH COURT , M/S. SAMSONITE SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2020 (10) TMI 1031 - DELHI HIGH COURT , M/S. PATANJALI AYURVED LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2020 (7) TMI 614 - DELHI HIGH COURT , TATA STARBUCKS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2021 (2) TMI 831 - DELHI HIGH COURT , LE REVE, NEEVA FOODS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2021 (2) TMI 563 - DELHI HIGH COURT , subject to the Petitioner depositing the entire principal profiteered amount as levied, excluding the GST amount already deposited, within six months, in equal monthly instalments, there shall be a stay, as far as the direction of recovery is concerned. As far as the direction in the impugned order regarding the reduction of prices is concerned, it is deemed appropriate that the Respondents file a reply to the application for interim relief - A separate date for hearing qua the said direction, be sought on 15th February, 2021; till then, there shall be stay of the said direction. List on 15th February, 2021.
Issues:
Challenge to the vires of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 and Rules 122, 126, 127, and 133 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Analysis: The High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the legality of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, along with Rules 122, 126, 127, and 133 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The court noted that similar petitions with comparable challenges were scheduled for a hearing on February 15, 2021. The court issued a notice to the respondents, which was accepted by their counsels. Since counter affidavits on legal matters were filed in other related writ petitions, no additional counter affidavit was required on legal issues. However, the court allowed for the filing of a counter affidavit on facts within six weeks, with a provision for a rejoinder within three weeks thereafter. Regarding interim relief, the court referred to specific cases and directed the petitioner to deposit the entire principal profiteered amount, excluding the already deposited GST amount, within six months in equal monthly instalments. In return, there would be a stay on the recovery direction. The court also addressed the reduction of prices direction in the impugned order and instructed the respondents to file a reply to the application for interim relief. A separate hearing date was set for further discussion on this matter, with a stay on the said direction until then. The case was listed for further proceedings on February 15, 2021.
|
