DELHI HIGH COURT VALIDATES ANTI-PROFITEERING LAWS: IMPLICATIONS FOR BUSINESSES UNDER CGST ACT

Print

TAG: GS 3: ECONOMY

THE CONTEXT: The recent decision by the Delhi High Court, upholding the constitutional validity of anti-profiteering provisions under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, is a significant development with far-reaching implications for businesses.

EXPLANATION:

• The court’s ruling, encompassing over 140 pages, reinforces the legal framework surrounding anti-profiteering and establishes the legitimacy of the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA).

Background of the Case:

• The case revolves around the constitutional validity of certain provisions related to anti-profiteering under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act and the establishment of the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA).
• Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited, along with over 100 other companies from diverse sectors including hospitality, fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG), and real estate, filed petitions challenging these provisions.
• The provisions in question primarily focus on Section 171 of the CGST Act, which mandates that any reduction in the tax rate on goods or services must result in a corresponding reduction in prices passed on to consumers.
• The establishment of the NAA is instrumental in overseeing and enforcing these provisions.
• The rules under consideration in the case include Rules 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 133, and 134 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules).
• These rules deal with various aspects, including the constitution of the NAA, the appointment of its chairman and members, determination of methodology and procedure, and duties related to anti-profiteering.

Upholding Constitutional Validity:

• The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice specifically upheld Section 171 of the CGST Act, which mandates that any reduction in the tax rate on goods or services should result in a corresponding reduction in prices for consumers.
• Additionally, the court validated various rules (Rules 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 133, and 134 of the CGST Rules) pertaining to the constitution and functioning of the NAA.

Key Aspects of Section 171 of CGST Act:

• The court emphasized that Section 171 falls within the legislative powers of the parliament under Article 246A of the Constitution.
• It clarified that Section 171 is not a mechanism for fixing prices but ensures that the benefits of tax reductions reach the end consumers, safeguarding against undue profiteering.

Rejection of Petitions by Companies:

• The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions filed by over 100 companies spanning diverse sectors, including hospitality, FMCG, and real estate.
• Renowned companies like Philips, Nestle India, Gillette, Patanjali, Whirlpool, and Emaar MGF were among the petitioners.
• The court affirmed that while instances of arbitrary exercise of power may occur, the remedy lies in challenging such orders on merit rather than challenging the provisions themselves.

Court’s Findings on Various Issues:

• The court addressed multiple grounds raised by the petitioners, offering conclusive findings on each:
  • No fixed method for determining profiteering.
  • Legislative prerogative for deciding benefit pass-on.
  • Absence of a fixed time period for price reduction.
  • Non-applicability of Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act.
  • Statutory provision immune from abuse possibility.
  • Comparisons of taxes under CGST Act in line with its intent.
  • Absence of a vested right of appeal.
  • No necessity for a judicial member in NAA.
  • Rule 124 compliance with separation of judiciary from executive.
  • Rule 133’s authority for interest and penalty within governmental rule-making power.
  • Inclusion of Goods and Services Tax in profiteered amount justified.
  • Directory nature of the time limit for the DGAP’s report.

Implications and Concluding Remarks:

• The Delhi High Court’s decision reinforces the legality and importance of anti-profiteering measures in the GST framework.
• The ruling emphasizes the government’s commitment to preventing unfair profiteering and ensuring that the benefits of tax reductions reach consumers.
• While acknowledging the potential for arbitrary exercise of power, the court underscores the availability of legal remedies for affected parties.

National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA):

• The National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) was established under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Service tax Act, 2017.
• It was initially set up for a period of 2 years after the implementation of GST in 2017.
• It was set up to control unfair profiteering by suppliers (where they were not passing on benefits of reduction in tax rates to consumers, etc.)
• It essentially works as a price regulator which ensures that any undue benefit is not reaped by companies, due to changes in GST laws.
• The NAA was subsequently given two extensions.
• NAA will be headed by senior officer of level of a Secretary to Union Government and shall have four technical members from Centre and/or States.
• The chairman and four members will be less than 62 years of age.

Conclusion:

• The court’s thorough analysis and comprehensive decision not only validate the constitutional foundation of anti-profiteering laws but also provide clarity on various aspects raised by the petitioners.
• This legal precedent sets the stage for continued vigilance against profiteering practices, promoting transparency and fairness in the implementation of the GST regime.

SOURCE: https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-upholds-validity-anti-profiteering-law-cgst-act