The Madras High Court while granting interim stay against anti-profiteering investigation held that notice can not be issued without a report of Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) followed by the order of the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA).
The petitioner, M/s Theco India Pt. Ltd challenged notice issued in terms of Section 133(5)(a) of the CGST Rules.
The case of the petitioner is that the sub-rule has been inserted only with effect from June 28, 2019 vesting powers in the respondent to cause enquiry into products apart from those in respect of which a complaint had been received.
In the present case the original complaint has been given prior to June 28, 2019 and thus the provisions of Rule 133 (5) (a) cannot be invoked.
It is pointed out by the Petitioner, that the NAA has ordered and inquiry as regards one of the products of the Petitioner i.e. Dettol HW Liquid Original 900 ml.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Director General of Anti Profiteering (DGAP) has by the impugned notice sought information on all products of the Petitioner.
In this context, he has referred to the recent amendment by which Sub-Rule 5(a) has been inserted in Rule 133 of the CGST Rules which contemplates the NAPA, for reasons to be recorded in writing, and that too after receipt of the report of complained Product, to require the DGAP to case investigation and the DGAP on the inquiry with regard to such other goods or services or both in accordance with the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The Single Judge bench of Justice Anita Sumanth noted that the DGAP can not suo moto issue a notice requiring the petitioner to submit information of all the products without any report of the DGAP followed by order of NAA.
Therefore, the court granted the interim relief and directed that the petitioner will not be required to furnish the information to DGAP in pursuant to the notice other than the complained product till the next hearing.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
