Tata Play Ltd Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court, in the case of Tata Play Ltd. vs. Union of India, addressed a challenge to the constitutional validity of the anti-profiteering provisions under the Goods and Service Tax (GST) law and, specifically, the merits of a profiteering order passed against the Direct-to-Home (DTH) service provider.
The court upheld the constitutional validity of the anti-profiteering mechanism while setting aside the order of the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAPA) and remanding the factual dispute for a fresh hearing before the newly empowered Principal Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).
Constitutional Challenge to Anti-Profiteering Provisions
Tata Play Ltd. challenged Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with corresponding Rules (126, 127, 128, 129, 133, and 137), arguing they were unconstitutional and ultra vires of Articles 14 (Equality), (Right to practice any profession), 246A, 246, 265, and of the Constitution of India.
Judicial Precedent: Constitutional Validity Upheld
The High Court immediately noted that the issue of the constitutional validity of the anti-profiteering provisions was no longer open for fresh adjudication. A Coordinate Bench of the Delhi High Court had already settled this matter in the judgment dated January 29, 2024, in Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 7743/2019 and batch).
