British Biologicals vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to raise all issues, including those on merits and jurisdiction, before the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAPA). The reasoning was that the DGAP's investigation was complete and its report would be considered by NAPA. Therefore, the Court directed that the DGAP's report dated February 25, 2021, be furnished to the petitioner within two weeks. The petitioner was granted two weeks from the receipt of the report to file objections. NAPA was directed to grant a personal hearing to the petitioner's authorized representative regarding these objections and to pass a speaking order, a copy of which would be provided to the petitioner. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue further remedies if NAPA's decision was adverse. Importantly, any adverse order from NAPA would not be given effect to for three weeks from its service on the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, British Biologicals, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated June 3, 2020, issued by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP). The investigation by the DGAP was triggered by a reference from the Standing Committee, alleging that the petitioner had not passed on the benefit of a GST rate reduction from 28% to 18%. The petitioner had corresponded with the DGAP regarding the investigation. The DGAP completed its investigation and generated a report dated February 25, 2021. The High Court was informed that this report would be considered by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAPA). The petitioner sought an opportunity to raise issues on merits, including jurisdiction, before the NAPA.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to raise all issues, including jurisdiction, before the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAPA) in light of the completed investigation report by the DGAP? The petitioner argued that they should have an opportunity to present their case on merits, including jurisdictional objections, before the NAPA, given that the DGAP's investigation was complete and a report had been generated. The petitioner relied on their correspondence with the DGAP, dated September 28, 2020, and October 6, 2020. The respondents, represented by Mohd. Shahan Ulla, did not appear to have made specific arguments on the issues before the High Court, but indicated that the DGAP had completed its investigation and a report had been generated.