M/S Subway Systems INDIA PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Held

The Court held that for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the applicant must ordinarily possess a personal or individual right in the subject matter, meaning an infringement of a legal right or prejudice to a legal interest is necessary. Since the petitioner had not been held guilty of any violation of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and NAPA had no objection to its deletion from the proceedings, the Court concluded that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to maintain the writ petition. Consequently, the notice dated June 17, 2021, which was issued to the petitioner, was deemed withdrawn. The Court disposed of the writ petition by dropping the proceedings against the petitioner as a respondent in the case before NAPA, making it clear that this order was without prejudice to any inference that might be drawn against M/s Dough Makers India Pvt. Ltd. due to the petitioner's prior presence in the NAPA proceedings.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Subway Systems India Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging a final order dated March 12, 2021, passed by the National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAPA). NAPA had held M/s Dough Makers India Pvt. Ltd. liable for profiteering to the extent of Rs. 78,41,754/-. The petitioner also sought to be dropped as a respondent from proceedings initiated by DGAP & Ors. against M/s Dough Makers India Pvt Ltd. & Ors. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the petitioner's locus standi, stating that the petitioner had not been found guilty of any violation under the CGST Act, 2017, nor had any adverse inference been drawn against it. The Court directed the respondents to obtain instructions on whether NAPA would delete the petitioner from the proceedings. Subsequently, NAPA communicated its no objection to deleting the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly in light of the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning the challenge to the order of the National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAPA)? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to be dropped from the proceedings before NAPA and challenged the order concerning M/s Dough Makers India Pvt Ltd. The petitioner also received a notice dated June 17, 2021, asking for proof of payment of the alleged profiteering amount. Respondents' Contention: The respondents argued that the petitioner lacks locus standi to file the writ petition as it has neither been held guilty of violating the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, nor has any adverse inference been drawn against it. NAPA, however, stated it had no objection to deleting the petitioner from the proceedings.