9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepts notice for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. Notice be served on Respondent No.4 through e-mail. 3. The challenge inter alia in the present petition is not only to an order dated 31st January 2019 passed by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority ("NAPA‟) (Respondent No.2) but also to the statutory provisions under which the said authority is exercising its powers i.e. Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST Act‟) and Chapter XV of the CGST Rules and in particular Rules 126, 127 and 133 as being violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. 4. The challenge is also to an impugned notice dated 4th February 2019 issued to the Petitioner No.1 by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al members are those who are or have been Commissioners of State Tax or Central Tax for at least one year or have held an equivalent post under the existing law. The Chairman and Members of the NAPA are to be nominated by the GST Council. In other words, there is no judicial member in the NAPA. It is further pointed out that under the CGST Rules there is no provision for constitution of an appellate authority to review the orders passed by the NAPA. 9. Another feature of the functioning of the NAPA is that under Rule 126 it is the NAPA which determines the "methodology and procedure‟ for determining as to whether the reduction in the rate of tax on the supply of goods and services on benefit of Input Tax Credit ("ITC‟) has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e product so that the ultimate price payable by the customer inclusive of tax remains what it was prior to 15 November 2017. Mr. Rohatgi points out that simultaneously with the reduction of tax the ITC was taken away and this is an additional factor that has to be considered while determining whether the Petitioner could be held to be a "profiteer‟ from the reduction of rate of tax. 11. The Court is of the view that the Petitioners have made out a prima facie case and that at this stage the balance of convenience is also in their favour for an interim order being passed in the manner indicated hereafter. 12. Under the impugned order of the NAPA, the Petitioners are required to deposit an amount of Rs. 41,42,97,629.35 with the Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
