Ttk Prestige Limited vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, TTK Prestige Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the Guidelines dated 09.09.2025 issued by the Union of India. The petitioner's grievance was that these guidelines mandated manufacturers to stamp or sticker revised Maximum Retail Prices (MRP) on unsold stock manufactured or packed prior to a GST revision, which was implemented effective 22.09.2025. The petitioner argued that the time allowed for this process was arbitrary. The respondents included the Union of India, the State of Karnataka, and the Controller of Legal Metrology. The dispute centered on the requirement to declare revised MRPs on existing stock after a change in GST rates.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner's grievance was primarily against the mandate to declare revised MRP on unsold stock. The Union of India, through the Additional Solicitor General, presented an Advisory dated 18.09.2025. This Advisory clarified that packaging material not exhausted prior to the GST revision could be used for packing until 31st March 2026 or until the material is exhausted, whichever is earlier. Crucially, it stated that corrections to the retail sale price (MRP) due to GST implementation by way of stamping, sticking, or online printing could be made at any place on the package. Furthermore, the Advisory explicitly stated that the declaration of the revised unit sale price on unsold pre-packaged commodities or unused packaging material bearing a pre-printed MRP is not mandatory. Manufacturers may declare the revised price voluntarily if they wish. In light of this Advisory, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner conceded that their grievance was redressed. Therefore, the petition was disposed of.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Guidelines dated 09.09.2025, issued by the Union of India, arbitrarily mandate the petitioner to declare revised Maximum Retail Price (MRP) by stamping or sticking on unsold stock manufactured/packed prior to the GST revision, in addition to the existing MRP, after accounting for reduced GST. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the Guidelines were arbitrary in mandating the declaration of revised MRP on unsold stock and that the time allowed for compliance was unreasonable. They relied on the principle that such mandates should be practical and not unduly burdensome. Revenue's contention: The Union of India, through the Additional Solicitor General, placed on record an Advisory dated 18.09.2025, which clarified the position regarding the use of packaging material and the declaration of revised MRP. The revenue contended that this Advisory addressed the petitioner's grievance.
Sections Cited
Articles 226, Articles 227
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the Guidelines dated 09.09.2025 and the petitioner asserts that the grievance was because the Guidelines mandates the manufacturers to stamp and stick the price with the GST and that the time allowed for doing the same is highly arbitrary. Mr. Aravind Kamath, the learned HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37919 Additional Solicitor General, places on record the Advisory dated 18.09.2025 which in its material part insofar as the petitioner's grievance reads as under,
"It is also clarified that any packaging material or wrapper which could not be exhausted by the manufacturer or packer or importer prior to revision of GST, may be used for packing of material upto 31st March, 2026 or till such date the packing material or wrapper is exhausted, whichever is earlier, after making corrections required in retail sale price (MRP) on account of implementation of GST by way of stamping or putting sticker or online printing as the case may be, at any place on the package.
Further to Para-6 above, it is informed that the declaration of the revised unit sale price on unsold pre-packaged commodities/ unused packaging material or wrapper bearing a pre-printed MRP is not mandatory. However, manufacturers/ packers/ importers/ their representatives may declare the revised unit sale price voluntarily, if they so desire." HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37919 Mr. Ganapati N. Hegde, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that in the light of this Advisory, the petitioner's grievance is reddressed. As such, the petition stands disposed of. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
RB
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.