9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 335 - HC - GSTProfiteering - allegation against the petitioner appears to be that it has not passed on the benefit of GST rate reduction, which slid from 28% to 18% - HELD THAT - Having regard to the fact that the investigation is complete and the report will engage the attention of the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAPA), as envisaged under the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the petitioner should have an opportunity to raise the issues on merits, including the aspect of jurisdiction, before the aforementioned authority. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to notice by Director General of Anti-Profiteering for not passing on GST rate reduction benefits. Analysis: The High Court heard an interlocutory application along with a writ petition challenging a notice issued by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) regarding the non-passing of GST rate reduction benefits. The DGAP had completed the investigation, and a report was generated on 25.02.2021. The petitioner was accused of not passing on the benefit of GST rate reduction from 28% to 18%. Correspondence between the petitioner and DGAP was noted, with the petitioner submitting letters dated 28.09.2020 and 06.10.2020. The Court decided that the petitioner should have the opportunity to raise issues on merits, including jurisdiction, before the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAPA) as per Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The Court disposed of the writ petition and interlocutory application with specific directions. The respondent was ordered to provide a copy of the investigation report to the petitioner within two weeks. The petitioner was granted the liberty to file objections to the report within two weeks of receiving it. NAPA was directed to grant a personal hearing to the petitioner's authorized representative regarding the objections raised. NAPA was further instructed to pass a speaking order, with a copy to be provided to the petitioner. The petitioner was allowed to seek appropriate legal remedies if NAPA's decision was adverse. Additionally, if NAPA's order was unfavorable to the petitioner, it would not be enforced for three weeks from the date of service to the petitioner.
|
