This Court has given protection to nearly all the Petitioners, faced with similar circumstances, i.e., wherever the authority has directed investigation in relation to products/services which were beyond the scope of original investigation. Therefore, we see no reason to deny the same relief to the Petitioner herein.
Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017—Anti Profiteering -- The petitioner challenged Section 171 on the ground that the same are ultra vires Article 246A of the Constitution of India, 1950. Further, challenged very composition of the NAPA under Rule 122 as unconstitutional. The Petitioner is aggrieved with the findings in the impugned order dated 27th November, 2020 to the extent that it directs fresh investigation of 14 projects being executed by the Petitioner in the State of Haryana. The respondent counsel submitted that no interim protection is called for as the matter is still under investigation. Further the Respondent has suo moto power to order investigation under Section 171(2). The court observed that in earlier judgments, this Court has given protection to nearly all the Petitioners, faced with similar circumstances.
Held that:-The Hon’ble Court directed that the directions given in the impugned order to investigate 14 projects of the Petitioner in the State of Haryana, shall remain stayed. Listed the matter on 15th February, 2021 along with the connected matters.
This Court has given protection to nearly all the Petitioners, faced with similar circumstances, i.e., wherever the authority has directed investigation in relation to products/services which were beyond the scope of original investigation. Therefore, we see no reason to deny the same relief to the Petitioner herein.
Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017—Anti Profiteering -- The petitioner challenged Section 171 on the ground that the same are ultra vires Article 246A of the Constitution of India, 1950. Further, challenged very composition of the NAPA under Rule 122 as unconstitutional. The Petitioner is aggrieved with the findings in the impugned order dated 27th November, 2020 to the extent that it directs fresh investigation of 14 projects being executed by the Petitioner in the State of Haryana. The respondent counsel submitted that no interim protection is called for as the matter is still under investigation. Further the Respondent has suo moto power to order investigation under Section 171(2). The court observed that in earlier judgments, this Court has given protection to nearly all the Petitioners, faced with similar circumstances.
Held that:-The Hon’ble Court directed that the directions given in the impugned order to investigate 14 projects of the Petitioner in the State of Haryana, shall remain stayed. Listed the matter on 15th February, 2021 along with the connected matters.