Reckitt Benckiser India Private ... vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary & ... on 29 January, 2024

Outcome
The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Act, 2017), and Rules 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 133, and 134** of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (Rules, 2017). The Court clarified that while there might be cases of arbitrary exercise of power under the anti-profiteering mechanism, the remedy is to set aside such orders on their merits, not to invalidate the statutory provisions themselves.

2. Core Issue
The core issue before the Court was the constitutional validity of the anti-profiteering provisions under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the associated Rules, which mandate that any reduction in the rate of tax or the benefit of Input Tax Credit must be passed on to the recipient by way of a commensurate reduction in prices.

3. Key Facts
* Numerous writ petitions were filed by companies across various sectors (hospitality, Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG), real estate) challenging the anti-profiteering provisions.
* These petitioners had received notices or orders from the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) for alleged profiteering under Section 171, directing them to pass on benefits of tax reduction or Input Tax Credit (ITC) to consumers along with interest.
* The petitioners contested the legislative competence of Parliament to enact these provisions, alleged excessive delegation of power, ambiguity, arbitrariness, price-fixing, absence of appeal mechanisms, and flaws in the constitution and functioning of the NAA.
* The Court decided to first adjudicate the constitutional validity of the challenged Section and Rules.

4. Arguments (Taxpayer vs Revenue)

Taxpayer (Petitioners):
* Legislative Competence: Section 171 and Rules are beyond Article 246A as they constitute a tax/financial exaction not explicitly authorized.
* Excessive Delegation: The provisions delegate essential legislative functions (determining methodology for profiteering) to the Executive/NAA without clear guidelines, violating Article 14. The term "commensurate" is vague, leading to unfettered discretion.
* Price-Fixing: Section 171 amounts to price control, violating Articles 19(1)(g) and 300A, as it dictates price reduction based solely on tax benefits, ignoring other commercial factors like input costs, supply, and demand.
* Methodology Flaws: The methodology used by NAA/DGAP, particularly for the real estate sector (ITC to turnover ratio), is arbitrary and leads to inconsistent results for similarly situated consumers/projects.
* Absence of Time Limit: The indefinite obligation to maintain reduced prices is arbitrary and unconstitutional (Articles 14, 19(1)(g)).
* Method of Passing Benefit: Mandating price reduction as the only method is arbitrary; alternative methods like increasing grammage or giving other benefits should be allowed. For low-priced FMCG, legal metrology rules make price reduction difficult.
* Lack of Appeal & Judicial Member: Absence of a statutory appellate mechanism and judicial member in NAA (a quasi-judicial body) renders the provisions unconstitutional and violates Article 50 (separation of powers).
* Retrospective Penalty & Interest: Levy of penalty and interest under Rules 127/133 is without corresponding substantive provisions in the Act, and Section 171(3A) introducing penalty cannot apply retrospectively.
* Comparison of Tax Regimes: Section 171(1) refers only to reduction in GST rates, not a comparison between the pre-GST basket of indirect taxes and the post-GST single tax.
* Sale of Goods Act: Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act allows parties to agree on prices, conflicting with Section 171's mandate.
* Constitution of NAA: NAA was constituted by an administrative order, not a gazetted notification, as required by Sections 171(2) and 166.
* Timelines: DGAP/NAA failed to adhere to statutory timelines for reports/orders.
* Scope of Investigation: DGAP expanded investigations beyond the initial complaint without proper authorization from NAA.

Revenue (Respondents & Amicus Curiae):
* Intent & Purpose: Anti-profiteering is a consumer welfare measure to ensure benefits of GST (ITC and tax rate reduction) are passed to consumers, aligning with Directive Principles (Articles 38, 39(b), 39(c)). It prevents unjust enrichment by suppliers.
* Legislative Competence: Section 171 falls within Parliament's power under Article 246A as an "ancillary" or "incidental" measure "with respect to GST," not a taxing provision itself. Judicial review of fiscal statutes is limited.
* No Excessive Delegation: Section 171 provides clear legislative policy; "commensurate" is a well-understood term. Rule 126 empowering NAA to determine methodology is a permissible delegation of details, subject to parliamentary oversight (Section 166).
* Not Price-Fixing: Section 171 targets the tax component, not the base price. Suppliers retain freedom to fix prices based on commercial factors, provided they pass on tax benefits.
* Methodology: No single formula can be prescribed; NAA determines methodology case-by-case based on industry specifics. NAA has issued a "Methodology and Procedure, 2018." The benefit must be passed on for "any supply" to "each recipient" at SKU/unit level.
* No Mandatory Time Limit: Absence of a time limit is essential for the provision's objective; providing one would defeat the intent.
* Method of Passing Benefit: Price reduction is the intended and sole method. Legal Metrology Rules allow for rounding off MRPs, addressing the FMCG industry concern.
* Appeal & Judicial Member: Right to appeal is statutory, not inherent. Absence of appeal does not render the law unconstitutional. Orders are subject to judicial review under Article 226. NAA's functions are fact-finding, not replacing judicial tribunals, so a judicial member is not mandatory.
* Penalty & Interest: Section 164 of the Act empowers the government to make rules providing for penalties, thus validating Rule 133. Penalty notices prior to the insertion of Section 171(3A) have been withdrawn, making that point infructuous. GST collected on the profiteered amount is rightly included.
* Timelines (DGAP Report): Timelines are directory, not mandatory, as no consequences are specified for non-adherence, and treating them as mandatory would harm consumer interest.
* Scope of Investigation: The phrase "any supply of goods or services" in Rule 129 grants broad investigative powers to DGAP, similar to the powers of the Director General under the Competition Act, allowing expansion beyond the initial complaint.
* Constitution of NAA: Rule 122, duly notified and gazetted, constitutes the NAA.

5. Court’s Reasoning
* Constitutional Scrutiny: The Court applied the principle of presumptive constitutionality for economic/tax laws, requiring greater latitude for the legislature.
* GST Act Philosophy: Acknowledged the GST Act's intent as a consumer-centric measure to eliminate cascading taxes and reduce the final burden on consumers. Section 171 is crucial to this objective, preventing unjust enrichment by suppliers.
* "Commensurate Reduction": Defined "commensurate" as the actual rupee and paisa savings from tax rate reduction or ITC benefit, to be reflected in price reduction. This principle incorporates "unjust enrichment" and aligns with Directives Principles of State Policy.
* Legislative Competence: Held that Section 171 falls within Parliament's legislative power under Article 246A as an ancillary and necessary aspect of GST, and a social welfare measure.
* No Excessive Delegation: Ruled that Section 171 itself provides a clear legislative policy and sufficient guidelines. The power delegated to NAA to determine methodology (Rule 126) is for working out details within this framework and is subject to parliamentary oversight (Section 166), not amounting to excessive delegation.
* Not Price-Fixing: Concluded Section 171 is not a price-fixing mechanism but regulates the indirect tax component of prices. Suppliers are free to adjust base prices due to commercial factors, but must justify such adjustments to ensure they are not a "pretense" to circumvent passing on tax benefits.
* Foreign Laws: Distinguished the anti-profiteering provisions of Australia and Malaysia, noting they are broader price-control mechanisms, unlike Section 171's specific focus on passing tax benefits.
* Methodology & Real Estate: Agreed that no single formula fits all. While upholding NAA's flexibility, it criticized the application of the ITC-to-turnover ratio for real estate, suggesting that total project-level savings divided by total area for a per-square-foot benefit would be a more equitable methodology, to be considered in future merit hearings.
* Method of Passing Benefit: Upheld that benefits must be passed on via commensurate price reduction ("cash in hand") for each supply of SKU to each buyer. It rejected indirect methods like increased grammage or discounts, and found that Legal Metrology Rules enable price adjustments even for low-priced items.
* Time Period for Reduction: Held that not specifying a time period for price reduction is appropriate for the nature of the Act, as benefits should apply as long as the underlying tax conditions exist and no other justifiable countering factors arise.
* Section 64A of Sale of Goods Act: Ruled it inapplicable as Section 171 imposes a positive statutory obligation on suppliers, distinct from a contractual discretion.
* Possibility of Abuse: Reiterate the settled legal position that a statutory provision cannot be struck down merely on the ground of the possibility of its abuse.
* Pre-GST vs. Post-GST Comparison: Affirmed that Section 171 necessarily entails a comparison between the pre-GST multi-tax regime and the post-GST single-tax regime to achieve the "One Nation, One Tax" objective.
* Right to Appeal: Reaffirmed that the right to appeal is a creature of statute. The absence of a statutory appeal does not invalidate the provisions, especially since judicial review under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is available.
* Judicial Member in NAA: Held that NAA is primarily a fact-finding body performing functions requiring domain expertise, not usurping functions traditionally exercised by courts. Thus, the absence of a judicial member does not render it unconstitutional.
* Rule 124 (Appointments) & Article 50: Found Rule 124 compliant with Article 50, as appointments and terminations are subject to the recommendations/approval of the constitutional body, the GST Council, insulating NAA from governmental interference.
* Penalty & Interest: Ruled that Section 171, read with Section 164 (power to make rules, including for penalties), sufficiently empowers the Central Government to prescribe interest and penalty under Rule 133 to ensure deterrence and compliance. The retrospective application of penalty was noted as having been withdrawn by NAA.
* GST on Profiteered Amount: Held that GST collected on the additional (profiteered) realization is rightly included in the profiteered amount.
* DGAP Report Timelines: Declared the timelines for DGAP reports as directory, not mandatory, to prevent consumer prejudice.
* Expansion of Investigation: Upheld the broad scope of DGAP's investigation under Rule 129, allowing it to expand beyond initial complaints, aligning with principles established in Competition Law.

6. Statutory References
* Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Act, 2017): Sections 171, 171(1), 171(2), 171(3), 171(3A), 2(108), 2(62), 2(63), 9, 57, 122, 164, 166.
* Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (Rules, 2017): Rules 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 129(6), 133, 133(1), 133(3), 133(3)(b), 133(3)(d), 133(5), 134, 134(2).
* Constitution of India: Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 38, 38(1), 39(b), 39(c), 50, 226, 245, 246, 246A, 254, 279A, 300A.
* Sale of Goods Act, 1930: Section 64A.
* Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
* Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011: Rule 2(m), 6(1)(e).
* Finance Act, 2019: Section 112.
* Customs Tariff Act, 1975: Section 9A.
* Competition Act, 2002: Section 19(3).
* Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
* Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992: Section 4(1).
* Income Tax Act, 1961.
* All-India Services Act, 1951.

7. Precedents Cited
* Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Sharakumar Jayantikumar Pasawala, (1992) 3 SCC 285
* V.V.S. Sugars v. Govt. of A.P., (1999) 4 SCC 192
* Ramesh Birch vs. Union of India, 1989 Supp SCC 430
* Barium Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. v Company Law Board & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 295
* Ankit Kumar Bajoria vs. M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd., Case No.20/2018 (NAA order)
* Vatika Limited, Case No. 64/2019 (NAA order)
* Emaar MGF Land Ltd, Case No. 26/2020 (NAA order)
* Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2015) 8 SCC 583
* Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2010) 11 SCC 1
* L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261
* Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2019) 8 SCC 416
* State of M.P. v. Rakesh Kohli, (2012) 6 SCC 312
* R. K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675
* Steelworth Ltd. vs. State of Assam, [1962] Supp (2) SCR 589
* Gopal Narain vs. State of U.P., AIR 1964 SC 370
* Ganga Sugar Corp. Ltd. vs. State of U.P., (1980) 1 SCC 223
* Lohia Machines Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 197
* Pt. Banarsi Das Bhanot vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1958 SC 909
* Sita Ram Bishambher Dayal vs. State of U.P., (1972) 4 SCC 485
* Bhatnagars & Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 478
* Mohmedalli and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1964 SC 980
* M.K. Papiah vs. Excise Commr., (1975) 1 SCC 492
* McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO, (1985) 3 SCC 230
* Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr., (2021) SCC OnLine SC 463
* M. Ramnarain (P) Ltd. v. State Trading Corpn. of India Ltd., (1983) 3 SCC 75
* Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of the City of Ahmedabad, (1999) 4 SCC 468
* CCI v. SAIL, (2010) 10 SCC 744
* Union of India vs. R. Gandhi, (2010) 11 SCC 1
* Rojer Mathews vs. South Indian Bank, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1456
* Clariant International Ltd. & Anr. vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (2004) 8 SCC 524
* Indian Carbon Limited v. State of Assam, (1997) 6 SCC 479
* Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE, (2016) 3 SCC 643
* Re The Delhi Laws Act, AIR (1951) SC 332
* Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. v. ESI Corpn., (1994) 5 SCC 346
* D.S. Grewal v. State of Punjab, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 9
* Dr.Ashwani Kumar vs. Union of India, (2020) 13 SCC 585
* Maganlal Chhaganlal (P) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors., (1974) 2 SCC 402
* Collector of Customs v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 30
* Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536
* Hinsa Virodhak Sangh v. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat, (2008) 5 SCC 33
* Union of India vs. Namit Sharma, (2013) 10 SCC 359
* Wing Commander Shyam Naithani vs. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) 6483/2021 & connected matters, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 769
* P.T. Rajan Vs. T.P.M. Sahir and Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 498
* Excel Crop Care Ltd. vs. Competition Commission of India, (2017) 8 SCC 47
* Cadila Healthcare Ltd. & Anr. vs. CCI & Ors., (2018) SCCOnline Del 11229
* Dhanjibhai Ramjibhai vs. State of Gujarat, (1985) 2 SCC 5
* Chairman & MD, BPL Ltd. vs. S.P. Gururaja and Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 567
* United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1951 SC 230
* Kondiba Dagdu Kodam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, AIR 1999 SC 2213
* UP Power Corporation Ltd. v. Virenddra Lal, (2013) 10 SCC 39
* Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh, (2008) 12 SCC 796
* Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers, (2003) 6 SCC 659
* Govt. of A.P. v. P. Laxmi Devi, (2008) 4 SCC 720
* Commr., H.R.E. v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, (1954) SCR 1005
* State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1977) 3 SCC 592
* P.K. Chinnasamy v. Govt. of T.N., (1987) 4 SCC 601
* Centre for PIL v. Housing & Urban Development Corpn. Ltd., (2017) 3 SCC 605
* Dinesh v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 3 SCC 771
* Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.), (1991) 2 SCC 375