Anti-Profiteering — Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— The petitioner challenged the order dated 19th March, 2020 passed by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority as well as for setting aside the consequential directions issued therein. The petitioner submitted that the proceedings are without jurisdiction as they are barred by limitation prescribed under Rule 128(i) and are violative of principles of natural justice. The DGAP report dated 19th September, 2019 refers only to the first complaint dated 30th July, 2018 and there is no reference to second complaint dated 22nd February, 2019.The petitioner had passed on commensurate reduction in prices to its recipients. The petitioner relied order dated 20th July, 2020 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) 4345/2020, [2020] 26 TAXLOK.COM 045 (Delhi).
Held that:-The Hon’ble High Court directed the petitioner to deposit the principal profiteered within two weeks. Upon deposit of the said amount, interest amount as well as the penalty proceedings initiated by the respondents shall stand stayed till further orders. List the matter on 24th August, 2020.—Affiniti Enterprises Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2020] 26 TAXLOK.COM 068 (Delhi)