In MAT No.889 of 2023 -CAL HC- Calcutta High Court grants interim stay on National Anti-Profiteering Authority's order, subject to Rs. 6 crore deposit by Siddha Real Estate Development and Others
Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & Justice Uday Kumar [16-06-2023]

Read Order: M/s. Siddha Real Estate Development Private Limited & Anr v. National Anti-Profiteering Authority & Ors.

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, June 26, 2023: The Calcutta High Court, taking into account that M/s. Siddha Real Estate Development Private Limited and others (appellants) had no other alternative remedy and had challenged 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 (first respondent). The stay applies to the amount of profiteering determined by the first respondent in their order dated September 30, 2022. However, this stay was subject to the condition that the appellants deposit a sum of Rs.6 crores with the Registrar General of the Court.

Briefly stated, 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 had also 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 division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & Justice Uday Kumar agreed 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. It also emphasized 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 September 30, 2022. The court acknowledged that the appellants have raised various issues related to the merits of the case, which can only be decided once the respondents file their affidavit in opposition to the writ petition.

With the above observations, the appeal was disposed of.