Rule 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017 – Anti Profiteering –- The petitioner challenged a notice issued by the National Anti- Profiteering Authority dated 10.07.2020 in consequence of a Report of the Director General of Anti-Profiteering dated 01.07.2020, on the ground that the power of suo moto investigation in terms of Rule 133 of the Rules was available to the Authority only with effect from 28.06.2019. The DGAP in its report concluded that the petitioner has not passed on the benefit of ITC to customers by way of commensurate reduction in the base price of products after implementation of GST with effect from 01.07.2017 and has, apparently, contravened the provision of Section 171(1) of the Act. The authority has issued notice dated 10.07.2020, calling upon the petitioner to tender an explanation. The petitioner submitted that Rules 133(4) and (5) (a) (b), by virtue of which the Authority is vested with the powers to refer the matter to the DGAP for further investigation or enquiry, has been inserted with effect from 28.06.2019, and would operate prospectively only. The complaint in this case was filed on 06.02.2018, prior to 28.06.2019 and the impugned notice is thus bereft of jurisdiction and bad in law. The court observed that with the coming into force of GST on 01.07.2017 and with it Section 171, every conceivable effort to contain profiteering must be made be available to the Authorities and the Rules merely arm and equip the officers with the necessary ammunition to address the issue effectively.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to comply with the directive under the impugned notice, put forth its explanation in writing within a period of three (3) weeks. After hearing the petitioner, the Authority shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.