Full Text
Date of Decision: 12.09.2023
M/S E-HOMES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY VIPUL GUPTA..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Tarun Gulati, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sandeep Chilana, Mr. Priyojeet Chatterjee, Mr. Senhil Sharma &
Kumar Sambhav, Advs.
THROUGH ITS CHAIRPERSON & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Mr. Vivek Gurnani & Mr. Kavish Garach, Advs.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the order dated 17.08.2023 (hereafter the ‘impugned order’) passed by the Competition Commission of India [National Anti-Profiteering Authority (hereafter ‘the Authority’)] under Section 171 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter ‘the Act’).
2. The petitioner assails the impugned order on several grounds including the ground that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not provided RAWAL with the copies of the reports submitted by the Director General of Anti- Profiteering (hereafter ‘the DGAP’), which were subject matter of consideration by the Authority. The petitioner further states that the impugned order also relates to another project in respect of which no complaint was made. According to the petitioner, the Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding in relation to a project, which is not the subject matter of a complaint.
3. Mr. Hossain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the principles of natural justice were not violated as alleged because as the impugned order is in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that the Authority has accepted most of the contentions advanced by the petitioner and has remanded the matter to the DGAP for verification. He also submits that as on date there is no order fixing any liability on the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot be aggrieved. He contended that the principles of natural justice are required to be followed only in case an adverse order is contemplated.
4. Insofar as the petitioner’s contention that the Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings in relation to a separate project which was not a subject matter of complaint is concerned, Mr Hossain submits that the said issue has been decided by an earlier order passed by the Authority as well as by the Madras High Court in another case.
5. Mr. Hossain further submits that Rule 133(5) (a) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017 empowers the Authority to direct the DGAP to investigate any other project. However, the contention that the Authority can issue directions for the investigation in respect of any RAWAL project, which is not subject matter of the complaint, is stoutly disputed by the petitioner.
6. We have briefly heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
7. Admittedly, the reports submitted by the DGAP, pursuant to which the impugned order was passed, were not provided to the petitioner. It is not disputed that the said reports are not favourable to the petitioner. The petitioner has had no opportunity to address the issues raised in the said reports. Thus, clearly, the impugned order is vitiated as it has been passed without following the principles of natural justice.
8. The contention that the impugned order is in favour of the petitioner is erroneous as in that case proceedings would have been terminated. However, the Authority has examined the reports submitted by the DGAP (copies of which were not provided to the petitioner) and has issued further directions for verification and investigation. The Authority has not accepted the petitioner’s contention to close the proceedings.
9. In view of the above, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is not necessary for this Court to examine any other contention.
10. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Authority for considering it afresh in accordance with the law. The Authority shall consider the contentions advanced by the parties and pass a speaking order. We are issuing this direction because RAWAL one of the petitioner’s grievances is that all contentions advanced by the petitioner were not considered and decided by the Authority.
11. It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.
12. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pending applications are also disposed of VIBHU BAKHRU, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J SEPTEMBER 12, 2023 ‘gsr’ RAWAL