2023 (9) TMI 1053 - HC - GST

Profiteering - Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was not provided with the copies of the reports submitted by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the reports submitted by the DGAP, pursuant to which the impugned order was passed, were not provided to the petitioner. It is not disputed that the said reports are not favourable to the petitioner. The petitioner has had no opportunity to address the issues raised in the said reports. Thus, clearly, the impugned order is vitiated as it has been passed without following the principles of natural justice. The contention that the impugned order is in favour of the petitioner is erroneous as in that case proceedings would have been terminated. However, the Authority has examined the reports submitted by the DGAP (copies of which were not provided to the petitioner) and has issued further directions for verification and investigation. The Authority has not accepted the petitioner s contention to close the proceedings. The impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is not necessary for this Court to examine any other contention - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Competition Commission of India under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, alleging violation of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction by the Authority in relation to a separate project.

Violation of Natural Justice:
The petitioner contends that the order was passed without providing copies of reports submitted by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering, which were crucial for consideration. The petitioner argues that this lack of access to the reports denied them the opportunity to address the issues raised, thus violating principles of natural justice. The High Court concurred, stating that the order was vitiated due to this procedural flaw.

Jurisdictional Issue:
The petitioner asserts that the Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining proceedings related to a project not subject to any complaint. The respondents argue that the Authority can direct investigations into other projects under Rule 133(5)(a) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017. However, the petitioner disputes this interpretation, claiming that the Authority cannot issue directions for investigations unrelated to the complaint.

Court's Decision:
The High Court set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter to the Authority for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized the importance of following principles of natural justice and ensuring that all contentions raised by the parties are duly considered and decided. The Court clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved, concluding the petition and disposing of pending applications.