Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Constitutional Validity of Section 171 of the CGST Act and various rules of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 Anti-Profiteering Measures Upheld: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant verdict that reinforces the principles of consumer welfare and fair market practices under the GST regime, the Delhi High Court today upheld the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), along with several rules under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The bench, comprising the Acting Chief Justice and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, delivered the landmark judgment, setting a precedent in the realm of indirect taxation and consumer rights.

The petitions, filed by Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited and M/S Adhiraj Constructions Pvt. Ltd., challenged the constitutional validity of anti-profiteering measures under the GST law, particularly focusing on the legality of notices and orders issued by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA).

In its comprehensive judgment, the Court observed, "Section 171 of the Act, 2017 is broad enough to empower the Central Government to prescribe penalty and interest to ensure that the suppliers are deterred from pocketing the benefits meant for the consumers when taxes are foregone by the Government." This observation highlights the court's stance on ensuring that the reduction in tax rates and the benefit of input tax credits are rightfully passed on to the end consumers.

Addressing the concerns regarding the composition and functioning of the NAA, the Court noted, "NAA is primarily a fact-finding body which is required to investigate whether suppliers have passed on the benefit to their recipients by way of reduced prices as mandated by Section 171 of the Act, 2017." The Court emphasized that the NAA's role is crucial in maintaining transparency and fairness in the GST regime.

Furthermore, the Court clarified the procedural aspects concerning the methodology for determining profiteering and the scope of investigation by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP). The verdict underlined, "No fixed/uniform method or mathematical formula can be laid down for determining profiteering as the facts of each case and each industry may be different."

The judgment is a pivotal step in ensuring that the legislative intent of GST as a consumer-centric tax reform is effectively realized. It establishes a legal framework that compels businesses to adhere to ethical practices by passing on the benefits of tax reductions to the consumers, thereby preventing unjust enrichment.

Date of Decision: 29th January, 2024

Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited And Others VS Union Of India And Ors.

 

Similar News