2021 (7) TMI 696 - HC - GST

Profiteering - benefit of input tax credit - HELD THAT - Issue notice. Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Let counter-affidavit be filed by the respondents within four weeks. Rejoinder-affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing. List on 10th November, 2021.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the production of case papers and investigation results by the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering.
2. Challenge to notices initiating fresh investigation under Rule 129 of CGST Rules.
3. Challenge to summons issued by DGAP.
4. Prayer for a declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 171 of CGST Act and Rules 122 to 137 of CGST Rules.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a direction for the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) to produce case papers and investigation results, challenging notices and summons issued. The petitioner also prayed for a declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 171 of CGST Act and specific rules of CGST Rules. The counsel argued that the Screening Committee and Standing Committee should have ensured input tax credit benefits and duty rate reduction post-contract execution. The DGAP requested information on all projects, not just the Aman Vilas project, prompting the court to issue notice to respondents for filing a counter-affidavit within four weeks. The respondents were directed to limit their inquiry to the Aman Vilas project until the next hearing.

2. The petition raised concerns over the production of case papers and investigation results by DGAP, along with challenges to notices initiating fresh investigations and summons issued. The petitioner contested the constitutionality of Section 171 of CGST Act and specific rules of CGST Rules. The counsel highlighted the need for committees to ensure input tax credit benefits and duty rate reductions post-contract execution. The court issued notice to respondents, directing them to file a counter-affidavit within four weeks and restricting the inquiry to the Aman Vilas project until the next hearing scheduled for November 10, 2021.

3. The petitioner challenged the production of case papers and investigation results by DGAP, along with notices initiating fresh investigations and summons issued. Additionally, the petitioner sought a declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 171 of CGST Act and specific rules of CGST Rules. The counsel emphasized the importance of committees ensuring input tax credit benefits and duty rate reductions post-contract execution. Respondents were served notice to file a counter-affidavit within four weeks, and the inquiry was limited to the Aman Vilas project until the next hearing on November 10, 2021.

4. The petition involved challenges to the production of case papers and investigation results by DGAP, as well as notices initiating fresh investigations and summons issued. The petitioner also prayed for a declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 171 of CGST Act and specific rules of CGST Rules. The counsel stressed the need for committees to verify input tax credit benefits and duty rate reductions post-contract execution. Respondents were directed to file a counter-affidavit within four weeks and confine the inquiry to the Aman Vilas project until the next hearing scheduled for November 10, 2021.