It is the case of the Petitioner that without there being a report of the DGAP on the complained product followed by an order of NAPA in terms of rule 133 (5) (a) of the CGST Rules, the DGAP cannot suo moto issue a notice requiring the Petitioner to submit information on all its products which are approximately 3500 in number.
Section 171 of CGST, 2017 — Anti Profiteering – The petitioner challenged notice dated 10.07.2020 issued in terms of Rule 133(5). The petitioner submitted that the this sub-rule has been inserted only with effect from 28.06.2019 vesting powers in the respondent to cause enquiry into products apart from those in respect of which a complaint had been received. In this case, the original complaint was given prior to 28.06.2019 and thus the provisions of Rule 133(5)(a) cannot be invoked. The court observed that Division Bench of this Court in the case of Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India (order dated 19.07.2019 wherein similar issue was dealt.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court granted an interim stay of proceedings till the next date of hearing on 04.12.2020.