Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief as GSTAT Exceeded Scope of Remand Order

Tata Play Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)

The Delhi High Court considered a petition challenging a direction of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) in an anti-profiteering dispute. The petitioner contended that the GSTAT had exceeded the scope of an earlier High Court remand order dated 23 September 2025. It was argued that entertainment tax liability had never been passed on to consumers, and therefore, no recovery could be attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted that similarly placed entities were treated differently. Reference was made to an earlier interim order passed during prior proceedings.

After hearing submissions, the Court issued notice to the respondents, who waived formal notice. Taking into account that an interim order had been in operation during earlier litigation, the Court directed that similar protection would continue. Accordingly, it ordered that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner until further orders. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 28 July 2026.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT

1. We have heard Mr. Arvind P Datar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.

2. The point of law that he intends to canvass is whether the GSTAT was justified in travelling beyond the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) 14422/2022 dated 23^rd September, 2025 wherein the order of remand was passed.

3. Issue notice to respondents. Learned counsel for respondents waive notice.

4. Mr. Arvind P Datar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that as far as entertainment tax liability is concerned, same was never passed on to the consumers and as such there was no question of same being recovered from the consumers in past. In such an eventuality, it is claimed that he cannot be made to suffer the order impugned, particularly when the other similarly placed players are treated indifferently.

5. Our attention is invited to the order dated 28^th November, 2022 passed in W.P.(C) 14422/2022 so as to urge that during the pendency of the earlier round of litigation there was an interim order in operation.

6. That being so, we are of the view that on the same terms, impugned order can be maintained in the matter. As such, we direct that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner until further orders.

7. List on 28^th July, 2026.