Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2021 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (2) TMI 831 - HC - GST


Issues:
1. Challenge to the vires of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 and Rules 122, 126, and 133 of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017.

Detailed Analysis:
The High Court of Delhi addressed a writ petition challenging the validity of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, along with Rules 122, 126, and 133 of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017. The court noted that similar petitions with comparable challenges were scheduled for hearing on February 15, 2021. Consequently, the court issued a notice regarding the challenge and accepted the same on behalf of the respondents. Both parties presented their arguments on the matter of interim relief.

The court considered previous judgments in cases like Philips India Limited vs. Union of India, Samsonite South Asia Pvt Ltd vs. Union of India, Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Vs. Union of India, and Cilantro Diners Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India. In light of these judgments, the court granted a stay on the direction for payment, subject to the petitioner depositing the entire principal profiteered amount, excluding the GST amount already deposited, within four months in equal monthly installments. However, regarding the direction for the reduction of prices, the court directed the respondents to file a reply to the application for interim relief. A separate date for the hearing concerning the direction for price reduction was set for February 15, 2021, with a stay on the said direction until then.

In conclusion, the court listed the matter for further proceedings on February 15, 2021, to address the challenges to the specified provisions of the Central Goods and Services Act and Rules. The interim relief granted by the court was contingent upon the petitioner fulfilling the conditions related to the deposit of the profiteered amount, while the direction for price reduction was stayed pending a reply from the respondents and a subsequent hearing on the matter.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates