9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 1094 - HC - GSTProfiteering - benefit of input tax credit to its customers/homebuyers not passed on - Section 171 of the CGST Act and Chapter XV of the CGST Rules (more particularly, Rules 126, 127 133 of the CGST Rules) - HELD THAT - Issue notice. Mr. Farman Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 accept notice. Counter affidavits be filed within a period of two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing. List along with other batch petitions on 15th February, 2021.
Issues:
Challenge to Final Order of National Anti-Profiteering Authority; Constitutionality of Section 171 of CGST Act and Chapter XV of CGST Rules; Impugning composition of Respondent No. 2; Jurisdiction of Respondent No. 3 in investigation. Analysis: The petitioners challenged the Final Order of the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) dated 05.11.2019, alleging that Petitioner No. 1 did not pass on the benefit of input tax credit to customers, resulting in illegal profiteering. The amount profiteered was specified, and the petitioners contested the constitutionality of Section 171 of the CGST Act and Chapter XV of the CGST Rules, citing violation of Articles 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Additionally, the composition of Respondent No. 2 under Rule 122 of the CGST Rules was questioned as unconstitutional and contrary to Supreme Court directives. The petitioners argued that the investigation by Respondent No. 3 exceeded the scope of the application submitted by Respondent No. 4, the complainant. They contended that the proceedings should be limited to the specific flat mentioned in the application and not extend to other customers who did not question the benefit passed on to them. It was asserted that Respondent No. 3 lacked the authority to assume jurisdiction over other customers and issue directions beyond the scope of Rule 133 of the GST Rules. Respondent No. 2 and 3 sought time to verify if directions were issued in accordance with Rule 133(5) of the GST Rules to other buyers in the project. The court issued notice to the respondents, who accepted it, and directed the filing of counter affidavits within two weeks. The case was listed for hearing on 15th February, 2021, along with other related petitions, with consideration of the interim application scheduled for that date.
|
