Supreme Court transfers writ petitions challenging anti-profiteering rules to Delhi High Court for uniform adjudication.

Case Name:

The National Anti-Profiteering Authority Vs. Hardcastle Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (GST SC Cases)

Key Takeaways:

- The Supreme Court consolidated multiple writ petitions challenging the anti-profiteering provisions under the GST laws to ensure a uniform and consistent interpretation of the law.

- The court transferred all such petitions from the Bombay and Punjab & Haryana High Courts to the Delhi High Court, where similar petitions were already pending.

- This move aims to avoid conflicting judgments from different High Courts on the same legal issue.

Issue:

Should the writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, and Rule 126 of the CGST Rules, 2017, related to anti-profiteering measures, be transferred to a single High Court for a uniform and consistent interpretation of the law?

Facts:

- A batch of writ petitions is pending before the High Courts of Delhi, Bombay, and Punjab & Haryana, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 126 of the CGST Rules, 2017, and other related provisions.

- Twenty writ petitions are pending before the Delhi High Court.

- Two writ petitions are pending before the Bombay High Court, represented by Mr. Rohan Shah and Mr. Vinayak Bhandari.

- One writ petition is pending before the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

Arguments:

- The petitioners argued against the constitutional validity of the anti-profiteering provisions under the GST laws.

- The National Anti-Profiteering Authority likely argued in favor of the provisions' validity and the need for a uniform interpretation across High Courts.

Key Legal Precedents:

The judgment does not explicitly cite any legal precedents.

Judgement:

The Supreme Court allowed the transfer petitions and directed that the following writ petitions shall stand transferred to the Delhi High Court:

1. Writ Petition No. 3536 of 2019 titled "Hardcastle Restaurants Pvt Ltd and Anr v Union of India & Ors," pending before the Bombay High Court.

2. Writ Petition No. 12872 of 2019 titled "Macrotech Developers Ltd and Anr v Union of India and Ors," pending before the Bombay High Court.

3. Civil Writ Petition No. 37033 of 2019 titled "M/s Nani Resorts & Floriculture Pvt Ltd v Union of India and Ors," pending before the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

The court reasoned that in the interests of a uniform and consistent view on the law, all writ petitions should be transferred to the Delhi High Court, where earlier writ petitions on the same issue were already pending.

FAQs:

Q1: What is the significance of this Supreme Court order?

A1: The order aims to ensure a uniform and consistent interpretation of the anti-profiteering provisions under the GST laws by consolidating all related writ petitions before a single High Court (Delhi High Court). This avoids the risk of conflicting judgments from different High Courts on the same legal issue.

Q2: What are the anti-profiteering provisions under the GST laws?

A2: Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 126 of the CGST Rules, 2017, provides for anti-profiteering measures. These provisions aim to ensure that businesses pass on the benefits of reduced tax rates or input tax credits to consumers by way of commensurate reductions in prices.

Q3: What happens to the writ petitions now?

A3: The writ petitions challenging the anti-profiteering provisions, which were pending before the Bombay and Punjab & Haryana High Courts, will now be transferred to the Delhi High Court for adjudication.

Q4: Can the petitioners before the Punjab & Haryana High Court object to this transfer?

A4: The Supreme Court has left it open for the petitioner before the Punjab & Haryana High Court to move the Supreme Court if they have any reason to object to the transfer, and the court will consider appropriate directions.

Q5: What is the potential impact of this case?

A5: This case will likely set a precedent for the constitutional validity and interpretation of the anti-profiteering provisions under the GST laws. A uniform judgment from the Delhi High Court will provide clarity and consistency in the application of these provisions across the country.

1. A batch of writ petitions is pending before the High Courts of Delhi, Bombay and Punjab and Haryana in which the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 read with Rule 126 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017 and other cognate provisions, is under challenge. Twenty writ petitions are pending before the High Court of Delhi. Two writ petitions, which are the subject matter of the present Transfer Petitions, are pending before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The petitioners before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in those two writ petitions are represented by Mr Rohan Shah and Mr Vinayak Bhandari, learned counsel.

2. Having heard learned counsel, we consider it appropriate and proper that, in the interests of a uniform and consistent view on the law, all the writ petitions should be transferred to the High Court of Delhi, where earlier writ petitions are already pending.

3. We accordingly allow the Transfer Petitions and direct that the following writ petitions shall stand transferred to the High Court of Delhi:

(i) Writ Petition No 3536 of 2019 titled “Hardcastle Restaurants Pvt Ltd and Anr v Union of India & Ors, pending before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay;

(ii) Writ Petition No 12872 of 2019 titled “Macrotech Developers Ltd and Anr v Union of India and Ors” pending before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay; and

(iii) Civil Writ Petition No 37033 of 2019 titled “M/s Nani Resorts & Floriculture Pvt Ltd v Union of India and Ors” pending before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

4. At this stage, we have not issued notice to the petitioner before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, but leave it open to the petitioner to move this Court, should it have any reason to do so for appropriate directions.

5. A copy of this order shall also be forwarded by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the National Anti-Profiteering Authority to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

6. The Registries of the respective High Courts are requested to immediately transfer the papers of the proceedings of the writ petitions to the High Court of Delhi. We leave it open to the parties to apply for necessary orders either with regard to the interim relief or for modification of such orders, as the case may be.

[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

[Ajay Rastogi]

New Delhi;

February 19, 2020