Delhi High Court Upholds GST Anti-Profiteering Provisions

New Delhi, January 29: The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, which mandates that companies must pass on any tax savings to consumers as reduced prices.

Representative image

Court's Reasoning

The court held that the anti-profiteering provisions in the 2017 law and the related rules are beneficial legislation that promotes consumer welfare. The bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, passed the verdict on a batch of over 100 petitions filed by various entities, including Philips India, Reckitt Benckiser, Gillette India, and Procter and Gamble Home Products.

Key Points of the Verdict

The court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, as well as Rules 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 133, and 134 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The court clarified that Section 171 mandates that any tax savings must be passed on as a commensurate reduction in price, emphasizing that it is a consumer welfare measure introduced in the public interest.

Addressing Concerns of Arbitrary Power

The court acknowledged the possibility of arbitrary exercise of power under the anti-profiteering mechanism. However, it emphasized that the remedy lies in setting aside such orders on merits rather than striking down the provision itself. The court noted that the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) is primarily a fact-finding body tasked with investigating whether suppliers have passed on the benefits of tax reductions to consumers as mandated by Section 171 of the Act.

GST Collected on Higher Prices Included in Profiteered Amount

The court observed that the GST collected by sellers on higher prices after the government sacrificed its revenue in favor of buyers is rightly included in the profiteered amount. It reiterated that Section 171 mandates that any tax savings must be reflected in reduced prices.

Anti-Profiteering Provisions Promote Consumer Welfare

The court emphasized that the anti-profiteering provisions in the Act and Rules are beneficial legislation that promotes consumer welfare. It highlighted that courts have consistently held that such legislation should receive liberal construction that favors consumers and promotes the intent and objective of the Act.

No Violation of Right to Practice Trade or Profession

The court dismissed the argument that Section 171 violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to practice any trade or profession. It clarified that Section 171 is not a price-fixing mechanism, and suppliers do not have any proprietary interest in the amount foregone by the government in favor of consumers through tax reductions.

No Unbridled Powers or Lack of Redress Mechanism

The court rejected the petitioners' contention that the NAA has been granted unbridled powers or that there is a lack of an appropriate redress mechanism under the NAA scheme. It held that there is no basis for such claims.

Section 171 Within Parliament's Law-Making Power

The court also dismissed the argument that Section 171 falls outside the law-making power of Parliament. It held that the provision is well within Parliament's legislative competence.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court's verdict upholds the constitutional validity of the anti-profiteering provisions in the CGST Act, 2017, emphasizing their importance in promoting consumer welfare. The court's detailed analysis and reasoning provide clarity on various aspects of the law and address concerns raised by petitioners. This decision is significant for ensuring that the benefits of tax reductions are passed on to consumers, thereby protecting their interests and promoting fair trade practices.