2021 (8) TMI 970 - HC - GST

Profiteering - infringement of legal rights - seeking direction to NAPA for deletion of proceedings against the petitioner - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that it is a settled law that in order to have the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject matter of the application. In other words, as a general rule, infringement of some legal rights or prejudice to some legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi in the matter. Since in the present case, the Petitioner has not been held guilty of violation of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and NAPA has no objection if the Petitioner is deleted from the array of parties, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the present petition - the notice dated 17th June, 2021 referred to by learned counsel for the Petitioner is deemed to have been withdrawn. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to final order of National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAPA); Locus standi to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the final order of NAPA, alleging profiteering by a company. The petitioner also sought to be dropped from proceedings as a respondent in a related case.

2. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner lacked locus standi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They contended that the petitioner had not been found guilty of any violation under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

3. The Court noted that for invoking Article 226, the applicant must have a personal or individual right in the subject matter. Citing legal precedent, the Court emphasized that infringement of legal rights or prejudice to legal interests of the petitioner is necessary for locus standi.

4. As the petitioner had not been found guilty of any violation and NAPA had no objection to dropping the petitioner from the proceedings, the Court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi to maintain the petition. Consequently, the notice asking for proof of payment of alleged profiteering amount was deemed withdrawn.

5. The Court disposed of the writ petition by dropping the proceedings against the petitioner as a respondent in the related case. The order clarified that this decision did not prejudice any inference against the company due to the petitioner's presence in the proceedings before NAPA.

6. The Court directed the order to be uploaded on the website and forwarded to the respective counsels via email for information and compliance.