Suppliers must uniformly pass on GST tax benefits to consumers; selective pricing practices violate Section 171 and undermine consumer welfare.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J.:

CM APPL.38028/2022

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

CM APPL.38027/2022

1. Accompanying writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23rd June, 2022 passed by the Respondent No.2 in order No. 26/2022 and the notice dated 1st June, 2022. Petitioner also seeks to challenge Section 171 of the CGST Act, Chapter XV of the CGST Rules, more particularly, Rules 126, 127 & 133 of the CGST Rules as unconstitutional, ultra vires and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 & 300A of the Constitution of India.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) has no suo moto powers and therefore, the application filed by the Secretary, NAA, to the Standing Committee seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 171, is not a valid initiation of proceedings against the petitioner for examining whether there is any profiteering or not.

3. He contended that NAA is not netting of the benefit of rate reduction extended in some products as against those where the petitioner has not extended the benefit of rate reduction qua the subject products, by way of commensurate reduction in prices, and therefore, while it is being punished for being a `bad boy', it is not being rewarded for being a `good boy'.

4. He stated that even though in some products they have not been able to grant commensurate reduction in prices, yet they have tried to pass on the benefit by way of increase in grammage of the product.

5. He also stated that petitioner has given post sale discount (Ex.GST) to the tune of Rs.73.59 crores, and therefore, this amount should be reduced from the total profiteered sum.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further contended that increase of customs duty on certain products should be excluded. In support of this argument, he gave certain illustrations from which it could be seen that when compared the invoices issued during the period 15th November, 2017 to 30th November, 2017 with the invoice raised in the month of March 2018, the actual sale price per unit including GST had remained same during both periods. He also prayed that the profiteering on account of GST collected by him, should be excluded.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for NAA contended that Section 171 of GST confers powers of wide amplitude upon the NAA to examine "any supply of goods or services" by any registered person and to examine whether the reduction in the tax rate or benefit of input tax credits have been passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices or not. He stated that even assuming that the rules provide for a mechanism by which a recipient or any other interested party or a Commissioner, can make a written application in a prescribed form which is required to be examined by the Standing Committee and the Screening Committee, however, this procedure in no way fetters the original power conferred upon the NAA by Section 171, to examine whether input tax credits availed by any registered person or the reduction in the rate of tax on any supply of goods or services, have been passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices or not. He submitted that whenever the word `any' is used in a statutory provision, it has to be given its broadest connotation and the expression `any' indicates `all' or `every'. He submitted that the argument that NA