Johnson & Johnson Pvt.Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors. 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 (CGST Act) and Rules 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 133, and 134 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules).

2. Core Issue
The core issue before the High Court was the constitutional validity of the anti-profiteering provisions under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the corresponding Rules 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 133, and 134 of the CGST Rules, 2017.

3. Key Facts
* Numerous writ petitions were filed by companies across diverse sectors (hospitality, Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG), real estate) challenging the anti-profiteering mechanism.
* The petitioners had been issued notices or orders by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) for alleged profiteering, directing them to pass on the benefit of tax rate reduction or Input Tax Credit (ITC) to consumers with interest, and in some cases, proposing penalties.
* The court decided to first adjudicate the constitutional validity of the impugned Section and Rules before addressing the merits of individual cases.

4. Arguments

Taxpayer (Petitioners):
* Legislative Competence: Section 171 and rules are beyond Parliament's power under Article 246A of the Constitution; they constitute a tax or financial exaction without specific statutory authorization, making them ultra vires.
* Excessive Delegation: The provisions suffer from excessive delegation of essential legislative functions. Parliament delegated powers to the Government, which then (via Rule 126) further delegated power to the NAA to determine methodology without clear guidelines, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).
* Vagueness and Arbitrariness: Terms like "commensurate" and "profiteering" are undefined, leading to unfettered discretion for NAA. Inconsistent application by NAA was cited (e.g., real estate valuation, acceptance of grammage increase in FMCG).
* Price Fixing: Section 171 amounts to price-fixing, infringing the right to trade and commerce under Article 19(1)(g) and property rights under Article 300A, as it focuses solely on tax benefits for price adjustment, disregarding other commercial factors (input costs, demand-supply).
* Indefinite Obligation: The absence of a fixed time period for which reduced prices must be maintained makes the obligation indefinite, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).
* Modes of Benefit Pass-on: Mandating price reduction as the sole method is arbitrary; increasing product volume/weight should also be recognized.
* Legal Impossibility: For low-priced FMCG products, rounding-off rules under the Legal Metrology Act make exact price reduction legally impossible.
* No Appellate Mechanism: The absence of an appellate forum against NAA orders denies judicial oversight and makes the provisions unconstitutional.
* Composition of NAA: The lack of a judicial member in the NAA, which performs quasi-judicial functions, renders Rule 122 unconstitutional and violates Article 50 (separation of powers).
* Casting Vote: Rule 134(2), which grants the Chairperson a casting vote in case of a tie, is illegal and unconstitutional.
* Retrospective Penalty & Interest: Penalty under Section 171(3A) was introduced with effect from January 1, 2020; its retrospective application is illegal. Levy of interest and penalty under Rules 127 and 133 is without specific substantive provision in the Act.
* Scope of Investigation: DGAP expanded investigations beyond the initial complaint, which was ultra vires its powers, especially before the amendment to Rule 133(5).
* Timelines: DGAP's reports and NAA's orders were often beyond the prescribed time limits under Rules 129(6) and 133, vitiating the proceedings.
* Comparison of Tax Regimes: Section 171(1) refers to GST rate reduction, not a comparison between pre-GST indirect taxes (a basket of taxes) and the post-GST regime.
* Section 64A of Sale of Goods Act: Parties should be free to agree on prices in contracts made after tax rate changes, as per Section 64A.
* NAA Constitution: NAA was allegedly constituted via an administrative order, not a gazetted notification as required by Section 171(2) read with Section 166.

Revenue (Respondents) & Amicus Curiae:
* Consumer Welfare & Constitutional Mandate: Anti-profiteering measures align with Directive Principles (Articles 38, 39(b), 39(c)) to ensure benefits of tax reform (reduced rates, ITC) flow to consumers, preventing unjust enrichment.
* Legislative Competence: Section 171 is an incidental and necessary provision "with respect to goods and services tax" under Article 246A, designed to achieve the GST's core objective of reducing the tax burden on consumers. It is not a taxing provision.
* No Excessive Delegation: "Commensurate" means a suitable and proportionate amount; Section 171 provides a clear legislative policy. The complexity of economic issues necessitates leaving procedural details and methodology (Rule 126) to the expert authority on a case-by-case basis. Rule 126 empowers NAA to determine, not prescribe, methodology. Parliament retains control via Section 166.
* Not Price Fixing: Section 171 regulates the tax component of prices, not the overall price or profit margins. Suppliers remain free to set base prices based on commercial factors, but cannot use the tax benefits to increase their margins. The law prevents tax avoidance (McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO applied analogously). Comparisons to foreign laws focused on "price exploitation" are therefore inapposite.
* Rebuttable Presumption: While price reduction is the primary mode, genuine commercial factors justifying an increase offsetting tax benefits can be submitted, creating a rebuttable presumption.
* Legally Mandated Mode: The law specifies "commensurate reduction in prices"; alternative methods like grammage increase or discounts are not prescribed. Legal Metrology Rules provide guidance on rounding off MRPs, negating claims of legal impossibility.
* Indefinite Period Justified: The obligation is perpetual as long as the tax benefits exist and are not offset by other legitimate factors, consistent with the Act's intent.
* Section 64A Inapplicable: Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act grants discretion, whereas Section 171 imposes a positive obligation. GST Acts are independent laws.
* No Vested Right to Appeal: Appeal is a statutory creation. Its absence does not invalidate the law, especially when judicial review under Article 226/227 is available.
* No Judicial Member Required: NAA is primarily a fact-finding body, not a judicial tribunal replacing pre-existing judicial functions. Many quasi-judicial bodies (e.g., SEBI) operate without judicial members. A casting vote is a common procedural device.
* Timelines are Directory: Time limits in the Rules are directory, not mandatory, as no consequences for non-compliance are specified, and a mandatory interpretation would prejudice consumer interest.
* Expansion of Investigation Valid: Section 171 and Rule 129(2) broadly refer to "any supply of goods or services," granting DGAP wide powers to investigate beyond the specific complaint to uphold consumer welfare.
* Penalty and Interest Valid: Section 171 is broad enough to empower the government to prescribe penalty and interest through rules (Section 164), acting as necessary deterrents against profiteering. Penalty show cause notices for periods before Section 171(3A)'s enactment are being withdrawn. GST collected on the profiteered amount is rightly included, as it was revenue foregone for the consumer.
* NAA Constitution: NAA was duly constituted by Rule 122, which was gazetted and laid before Parliament, fulfilling statutory requirements.

5. Court’s Reasoning
* Principles of Constitutional Review: The Court reiterated the presumption of constitutionality, requiring a clear transgression of constitutional principles for a law to be struck down. It emphasized judicial restraint for economic legislation, allowing legislative latitude for complex problems. Possibility of abuse is not a ground for invalidation.
* GST as a Paradigm Shift: The CGST Act aims to simplify indirect taxes, eliminate cascading effects, and ensure consumer benefits. Section 171 is integral to this objective, preventing unjust enrichment by manufacturers/suppliers who would otherwise appropriate tax reductions.
* Legislative Competence: Article 246A, granting power to legislate "with respect to goods and services tax," includes all ancillary, incidental, and necessary matters. Section 171, being a consumer welfare regulatory measure preventing unjust enrichment, falls squarely within this legislative domain.
* No Excessive Delegation: Section 171, read with the definition of "commensurate" (meaning equal or near-about reduction in price for tax foregone), provides a clear legislative policy. Delegation of methodology determination to NAA (Rule 126) is permissible for complex, case-specific issues. The rule-making power under Section 164, coupled with parliamentary oversight (Section 166), ensures proper control. The argument of delegatus non potest delegare does not apply.
* Not a Price-Fixing Mechanism: Section 171 does not control the base price or profit margins. It only mandates that the tax component reduction or ITC benefit be passed on. Suppliers retain the freedom to fix prices based on commercial factors, provided they don't use tax benefits as a pretext for profiteering. The presumption of price reduction due to tax benefits is rebuttable with cogent justification for other cost increases.
* Method of Benefit Pass-on: The Legislature has the prerogative to prescribe the method. "Commensurate reduction in prices" is a clear directive for "cash-in-hand" benefit to consumers, which is not arbitrary. Legal Metrology Rules for rounding off MRPs (Rules 2(m), 6(1)(e)) prevent claims of legal impossibility in low-value products.
* Indefinite Period: Not prescribing a fixed time limit for price reduction is aligned with the dynamic nature of tax benefits and market conditions. The obligation exists as long as the underlying tax benefit is present.
* Inapplicability of Sale of Goods Act: Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act is discretionary, while Section 171 of the CGST Act imposes a mandatory obligation. The CGST Act, being a specific tax legislation, takes precedence, and contracts violating its public policy are void.
* No Vested Right of Appeal & Judicial Oversight: There is no inherent right to appeal; it is a creature of statute. The availability of judicial review under Article 226/227 of the Constitution provides sufficient oversight over NAA's decisions.
* No Judicial Member Required in NAA: NAA primarily performs a fact-finding role, investigating whether tax benefits have been passed on. It does not usurp judicial functions previously exercised by courts. Therefore, a judicial member is not constitutionally mandated. The issue of the Chairman's casting vote was acknowledged but not addressed in detail due to the respondents' statement that it was never utilized. The challenge to NAA's constitution through an administrative order (rather than gazette notification) was deemed not to affect the constitutional validity of the impugned Section, thus not addressed in this judgment.
* Validity of Interest and Penalty: Section 171, along with Section 164 (power to make rules for penalties), sufficiently empowers the Central Government to prescribe interest and penalty through Rule 133(3)(b) and (d) as necessary deterrents. The retrospective penalty issue was rendered infructuous as NAA withdrew penalty proceedings for the period prior to Section 171(3A)'s enactment. Including GST collected on the profiteered amount is justified as it was revenue intended for the consumer.
* Time Limit for DGAP Report: The timelines specified in the Rules are held to be directory, not mandatory, as there are no specified consequences for non-compliance, and a mandatory interpretation would unjustly deny remedies to consumers.
* Expansion of Investigation: The wide wording of Section 171 and Rule 129(2) allows DGAP to expand investigations beyond the initial complaint. This is consistent with the consumer welfare objective and precedents in competition law, preventing circumvention due to consumer ignorance or market complexities.

6. Statutory References
* Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: Sections 2(62), 2(63), 2(80), 9, 112, 164, 166, 171, 171(1), 171(2), 171(3), 171(3A)
* Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017: Rules 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 129(2), 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
* Other Acts/Rules:
* Finance Act, 2019 (Section 112)
* Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (Section 64A)
* Legal Metrology Act, 2009
* Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (Rules 2(m), 6(1)(e))
* Central Excise Act
* Service-Tax statute
* Sales-tax Acts
* Competition Act, 2002 (Section 19(3))
* Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (Section 9A)
* Trade Practices Act, 1974 (Australia) (Sections 75AU, 75AV(1))
* Price Control and Anti-Profiteering Act, 2011 (Malaysia) (Sections 14, 15)
* 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)
* 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
* Indian Carbon Limited v. State of Assam (1997) 6 SCC 479
* Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE 2015 (326) E.L.T. 209 (SC) / (2016) 3 SCC 643
* 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
* Union of India vs. VKC Footsteps India (P) Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 706
* Welfare Association, A.R.P., Maharashtra Vs. Ranjit P. Gohil, (2003) 9 SCC 358
* Chaturbhai M. Patel v. Union of India [AIR 1960 SC 424 : (1960) 2 SCR 362]
* R.S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer, Gujarat & Ors. vs. Ajit Mills Limited & Anr., (1977) 4 SCC 98
* 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
* CIT vs. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 2 SCC 460
* CCE vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (2016) 1 SCC 170
* 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
* State of Rajasthan v. Union of India [(1977) 3 SCC 592 : (1978) 1 SCR 1]
* Commr., H.R.E. v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt [1954 SCR 1005 : AIR 1954 SC 282]
* 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
* Namit Sharma vs. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745
* Union of India vs. Namit Sharma, (2013) 10 SCC 359
* Dhanjibhai Ramjibhai vs. State of Gujarat (1985) 2 SCC 5
* Chairman & MD, BPL Ltd. vs. S.P. Gururaja and Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 567
* Wing Commander Shyam Naithani vs. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) 6483/2021 & connected matters, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 769
* 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
* Hinsa Virodhak Sangh v. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat [(2008) 5 SCC 33]
* Govt. of A.P. v. P. Laxmi Devi [(2008) 4 SCC 720]
* Morey v. Doud [1957 SCC OnLine US SC 105 : 1 L Ed 2d 1485 : 354 US 457 (1957)]
* Secy. of Agriculture v. Central Roig Refining Co. [1950 SCC OnLine US SC 14 : 94 L Ed 381 : 338 US 604 (1950)]
* 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