2021 (2) TMI 838 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of stay - 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 - HELD THAT - Keeping in view the orders passed by this Court in Philips India Limited vs. Union of India 2020 (6) TMI 626 - DELHI HIGH COURT Samsonite South Asia Pvt Ltd vs. Union of India 2020 (10) TMI 1031 - DELHI HIGH COURT Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2020 (7) TMI 614 - DELHI HIGH COURT and Cilantro Diners Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India 2020 (8) TMI 570 - DELHI HIGH COURT we are not inclined to grant stay subject only to deposit of the amount computed qua power banks. Subject to the petitioner depositing the entire principal profiteered amount i.e. Rs. 1, 91, 21, 441/- excluding the GST amount already deposited within four months in equal monthly instalments there shall be stay of recovery. List on 15th February 2021.

Summary

Issues:
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.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the validity of specific sections of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, and related rules. The Court noted that similar petitions with comparable challenges were scheduled for a hearing on February 15, 2021. Notice was issued to the respondents, who accepted it through their counsels. The Court directed the filing of a counter affidavit within eight weeks. The Court indicated its intention to address the legal challenges raised in all the writ petitions collectively. The respondents' counsels mentioned that since counter affidavits were filed in other similar petitions, no additional counter affidavit was necessary for this particular petition concerning the legal provisions under challenge.

The petitioner's counsel argued that while the complaint initially focused on power banks, the investigation's scope was expanded to include DSLR Cameras, and the computation was extended to cover both categories. The petitioner requested that any direction for deposit should be limited to the computation related to power banks only. However, the Court, considering previous orders in similar cases, declined to grant a stay solely based on power banks' computation. The Court ruled that the petitioner must deposit the entire principal profiteered amount, excluding the already deposited GST amount, totaling Rs. 1,91,21,441, within four months in equal monthly installments to secure a stay of recovery. A specific application related to the stay was disposed of, and the matter was listed for further hearing on February 15, 2021.