SC issues notices on plea challenging anti-profiteering provisions

The petition, filed by Swati Reality, states that the High Court erred in failing to appreciate that the impugned provisions under the GST system are ultra vires the Constitution

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to the central government, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), the Goods and Services (GST) Council and the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (its functions have been taken over by the Competition Commission of India) on a petition challenging a Delhi High Court verdict, upholding the constitutional validity of anti-profiteering provisions filed by a real estate company.

The petition, filed by Swati Realty, says the high court erred in failing to appreciate that the impugned provisions under the GST system are ultra vires of the Constitution.

 

Earlier in February, too, the apex court issued a notice to the Union government over the same matter in a separate petition.

Abhsishek Rastogi, founder of Rastogi Chambers, who argued the case for the real estate player in the Supreme Court, said the Delhi HC was in agreement with the submissions of the real estate companies that the methodology adopted by the national anti-profiteering authority (NAA) is flawed. This is because, in the real estate sector, there is no direct correlation between turnover and input tax credit (ITC) availed for a particular period.

Accordingly, in light of this observation by the high court, it is imperative that even the constitutional validity is decided by the apex court for the real estate players, he said.

NAA was set up in November 2017 to ensure that companies pass on the benefits of ITC and GST reduction to consumers by way of reduction in prices.

The Competition Commission of India has been looking into complaints of profiteering against companies since December 2022.

The Delhi High Court had in January upheld the constitutional validity of anti-profiteering provisions.

More than 100 companies, including Hindustan Unilever, Patanjali, Jubilant Foodworks, and Phillips, had filed petitions against the anti-profiteering provisions in the high court.

The court had held that the provisions pertain to a commensurate reduction in prices when GST rates are reduced or due to ITC. And hence, these provisions are in public interest. They are in line with legislative powers given under the Constitution, it had ruled.