Calcutta High Court Imposed Interim Stay on National Anti-Profiteering Authority’s Order in Matter Challenging Validity of Section 71 of GST Act
Calcutta High Court Imposed Interim Stay on National Anti-Profiteering Authority’s Order in Matter Challenging Validity of Section 71 of GST Act
The Calcutta High Court while considering a writ petition challenging the validity of the anti-profiteering provisions in Section 171 of the Goods and Services Tax (GST Act) and Rules, has granted an interim stay on the order passed by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (respondent).
The bench comprising of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Uday Kumar took consideration of the fact that the (appellants) Siddha Real Estate Development Private Limited and others had no other alternative remedy and the stay was subject to the condition that the appellants deposit a sum of Rs. 6 crores with the Registrar General of the Court.
The brief background of the case is that the appellants had filed a writ petition seeking an issuance of writ of declaration that anti-profiteering provisions contained in Section 171 of the GST Act and Rules were unconstitutional and ultra vires the provisions of the Act.
The appellants prayed for issue of writ of mandamus to recall the adjudication order passed by the first respondent.
This intra-Court appeal by the appellants was directed against the order passed by the Single Bench, by which the Writ Court had accepted the submission made by the Additional Solicitor General that if the interim relief sought for by the appellants was granted, it would amount to granting the final relief in the writ petition.
The bench noting the contentions concurred with the decision of the Writ Court that granting a stay on the impugned provisions would essentially amount to granting the main relief sought in the writ petition.
The Court highlighted the legal principle that a statutory provision is considered valid unless it is declared otherwise.
However, the Court observed that the appellants in this case specifically limited their prayer to the amount of profiteering determined by the first respondent in the order dated 30 September, 2022.
The Court noted that the appellants had raised various issues related to the merits of the case, which could only be decided once the respondents filed their affidavit in opposition to the writ petition.
The appeal was disposed of with the above observations.
