Fusion Buildtech Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors. on 29 January, 2024

1. 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), which deal with anti-profiteering measures. The Court clarified that individual orders passed by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) might be challenged on merits for arbitrary exercise of power, but this would not invalidate the statutory provisions themselves.

2. Core Issue
The core issue was the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, and associated Rules 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 133, and 134 of the CGST Rules, 2017. Petitioners challenged these provisions primarily on grounds of legislative competence, excessive delegation, vagueness, violation of fundamental rights (Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 300A), absence of appeal, and procedural irregularities.

3. Key Facts
* A batch of writ petitions was filed by various companies (from hospitality, FMCG, real estate, etc.) challenging the constitutional validity of the anti-profiteering provisions and orders issued by the NAA.
* The anti-profiteering provisions (Section 171 and associated Rules) were introduced to ensure that the benefits of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and reduction in GST rates are passed on to consumers by way of a "commensurate reduction in prices."
* The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, 2017, highlighted the intent to simplify the indirect tax regime, eliminate cascading effects, and ensure consumer welfare.
* Reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) and the 13th Finance Commission had highlighted that past tax reforms (like VAT) failed to pass benefits to consumers, leading to "unjust enrichment" by businesses.
* The petitioners alleged that the NAA and Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) adopted arbitrary and inconsistent methodologies (e.g., for real estate, comparing ITC to turnover ratio, which can be skewed by advance payments).
* Petitioners also contended that a statutory appeal mechanism was absent, and the NAA lacked judicial members, making its decisions susceptible to governmental interference.

4. Arguments (Taxpayer vs Revenue)

Taxpayer (Petitioners):
* Legislative Competence: Section 171 is beyond Parliament's power under Article 246A, not being "with respect to" GST, but rather a tax/financial exaction without proper statutory backing.
* Excessive Delegation: The provisions suffer from excessive delegation, as essential legislative functions (determining methodology) are left to the executive/NAA without clear guidelines. Terms like "commensurate" and "profiteering" are vague.
* Arbitrariness/Violation of Fundamental Rights:
* No fixed/uniform methodology leads to arbitrary decisions, violating Article 14.
* It amounts to price-fixing, violating Article 19(1)(g) (right to trade) and Article 300A (right to property), as it restricts price setting without considering commercial factors (e.g., input costs, demand-supply).
* No fixed time period for maintaining reduced prices is arbitrary.
* Mandating only "price reduction" is arbitrary, disallowing other forms of benefit (e.g., increased grammage), especially for low-priced FMCG products where rounding-off issues exist under Legal Metrology laws.
* Procedural Flaws:
* Absence of a statutory appellate mechanism against NAA orders.
* Composition of NAA lacks judicial members, despite performing quasi-judicial functions.
* Rule 124 allows governmental interference in NAA's functioning.
* Rule 134(2) (Chairman's casting vote) is illegal.
* Proceedings are time-barred (Rule 133, Rule 129(6)).
* DGAP expanded investigation beyond the scope of initial complaints without jurisdiction.
* Levy of interest and penalty under Rules 127 and 133 is without substantive power in the Act; retrospective application of Section 171(3A) for penalties is illegal.
* Interpretation of "Tax Reduction": Section 171 refers only to GST rate reductions, not a comparison between post-GST rates and a "basket" of pre-GST indirect taxes.
* Contractual Freedom: Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act allows parties to agree on prices, implying anti-profiteering interferes with contractual freedom.
* NAA Constitution: NAA was constituted by administrative order, not a gazetted notification as per Section 171(2).

Revenue (Respondents):
* Consumer Welfare: Anti-profiteering measures protect consumer welfare, align with Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 38, 39(b) & (c)), and prevent unjust enrichment.
* Legislative Competence: Article 246A grants wide power "with respect to" GST, including ancillary provisions like anti-profiteering, crucial for the GST regime's success.
* No Excessive Delegation: Section 171 clearly outlines legislative policy (benefits must be passed on via commensurate price reduction). "Commensurate" has a clear meaning. Rule 126 empowers NAA to determine methodology, which is a permissible delegation for technical details.
* Not Price-Fixing: Section 171 only regulates the tax component of the price, not the base price, allowing businesses to adjust for commercial factors, provided it's not a pretense to avoid passing on benefits.
* Methodology: No single formula can apply to all cases; NAA determines methodology case-by-case, considering industry peculiarities. Legal Metrology Rules address rounding-off issues for MRP.
* Timelines: Time limits in Rules are directory, not mandatory, to prevent consumer injustice.
* Scope of Investigation: Section 171 and Rule 129(2) broadly cover "any supply," allowing DGAP to expand investigations beyond the initial complaint.
* Penalties/Interest: Rule 133 for interest and penalty is within the rule-making power under Section 164 to ensure deterrence. Retrospective penalty claims have been withdrawn. GST collected on profiteered amounts is rightly included.
* Appeal/Judicial Member: Appeal is a statutory right, not inherent. NAA performs fact-finding, not judicial functions previously exercised by High Courts, so judicial members are not strictly required. Its orders are subject to Article 226 writ jurisdiction.
* NAA Constitution/Independence: NAA was constituted by notification and Rules laid before Parliament. Its selection and termination processes ensure independence from governmental interference.
* Section 64A: Not applicable as Section 171 imposes a positive obligation, overriding contractual discretion for public policy.
* Comparison of Taxes: Comparison with pre-GST taxes is essential to fulfill the objective of eliminating cascading effects.

5. Court’s Reasoning

The High Court largely agreed with the Revenue and Amicus Curiae, applying principles of statutory interpretation for economic and beneficial legislation.

• Constitutional Principles: Reaffirmed the presumption of constitutionality, limited judicial review for economic laws, and the focus on the direct and inevitable effect of legislation.
• Nature of GST and Section 171: Recognized the Act, 2017 as a paradigm shift, aiming for a unified market, reducing cascading effects, and benefiting consumers. Section 171 is a consumer welfare regulatory measure, embodying the principle of "unjust enrichment," ensuring tax foregone by the government benefits consumers.
• Legislative Competence: Held that Section 171 falls within Parliament's law-making power under Article 246A, as "laws with respect to goods and services tax" include all ancillary, incidental, and necessary matters, such as preventing unjust enrichment post-tax reform.
• No Excessive Delegation: Section 171 provides a clear legislative policy: benefits of tax reduction/ITC must be passed on via commensurate price reduction. "Commensurate" is a definite term. Rule 126 empowering NAA to determine methodology is a valid delegation of details within this policy. Parliamentary oversight via Section 166 ensures accountability of rules.
• Not Price-Fixing: Section 171 only addresses the indirect tax component of prices, not dictating base prices. Businesses remain free to set prices based on commercial factors, provided they don't use it as a pretense to appropriate tax benefits. The presumption of price reduction is rebuttable if suppliers can justify other cost variations.
• Methodology: Accepted that no single, uniform mathematical formula can be prescribed due to varying facts across industries/cases. NAA must determine a fair and reasonable methodology on a case-by-case basis.
  • However, the Court critically observed the NAA/DGAP's real estate methodology (ITC to turnover ratio) as potentially flawed, suggesting a "total savings divided by total area to arrive at the per square feet benefit" approach for consistency.
• Form of Benefit: The Legislature has the prerogative to define how benefits are passed on. Mandating "commensurate reduction in prices" (cash in hand) is valid and prevents suppliers from substituting it with other forms like increased grammage or discounts, as this would defeat the direct consumer benefit. Legal Metrology Rules adequately handle price rounding issues.
• Time Period: The absence of a fixed time period for price reduction is justified given the continuous nature of tax benefits and the intent of the Act.
• Section 64A of Sale of Goods Act: Held inapplicable as it confers discretion on the buyer, while Section 171 imposes a positive statutory obligation on the supplier in public interest.
• Possibility of Abuse: Mere apprehension of misuse of statutory provisions is not a ground to declare them unconstitutional.
• Comparison of Taxes: To fulfill the intent of the Act, 2017, which subsumed a "basket" of pre-GST indirect taxes, comparison with this basket is necessary to assess the net benefit of the GST regime.
• Absence of Appeal: Right to appeal is statutory, not inherent. The availability of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution provides sufficient oversight.
• Judicial Member: NAA performs a fact-finding exercise by domain experts, not functions previously vested in High Courts. Therefore, the requirement of a judicial member does not apply.
• Casting Vote: Rule 134(2) (Chairman's casting vote) was deemed impermissible, but the Court noted that it had never been used and thus did not delve into a detailed discussion.
• NAA Constitution (Rule 124): Rule 124 is in consonance with Article 50. The selection and termination process for NAA members (via GST Council) ensures independence. The challenge to the administrative order of constitution of NAA was noted but not delved into as it doesn't affect the constitutional validity of Section 171.
• Levy of Interest and Penalty (Rule 133): Rule 133(3)(b) & (d) are within the rule-making power of the Central Government under Section 164. The broad intent of Section 171 to deter profiteering encompasses the power to levy interest and penalties. The retrospective penalty issue was rendered infructuous as such notices were withdrawn by NAA. GST collected on the profiteered amount is rightly included to prevent unjust enrichment.
• Time Limit for DGAP Report: The timelines in the Rules are directory, not mandatory, to ensure that beneficial legislation is not defeated by procedural delays, especially when no prejudice is caused.
• Expansion of Investigation: The broad wording of Section 171 and Rule 129(2) (using "any supply") permits DGAP to expand investigations beyond the initial complaint, as supported by precedents under the Competition Act, to ensure the purpose of the investigation is not frustrated.

6. Statutory References
* Constitution of India: Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 38, 39(b), 39(c), 50, 226, 245, 246, 246A, 254, 279A, 300A.
* Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: Section 2(62), 2(63), 2(80), 2(108), 9, 57, 122, 164, 166, 171, 171(1), 171(2), 171(3), 171(3A).
* Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (Chapter XV): Rules 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 129(6), 133, 133(1), 133(3)(b), 133(3)(d), 133(5), 134, 134(2).
* Sale of Goods Act, 1930: Section 64A.
* Legal Metrology Act, 2009:
* Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011: Rules 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:
* Central Excise Act:
* Service-Tax statute:
* All-India Services Act, 1951:
* Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992: Section 4(1).
* Income Tax Act, 1961:

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)
* 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
* Namit Sharma vs. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745
* 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
* 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
* CIT vs. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 2 SCC 460
* CCE vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (2016) 1 SCC 170
* Dhanjibhai Ramjibhai vs. State of Gujarat (1985) 2 SCC 5
* Chairman & MD, BPL Ltd. vs. S.P. Gururaja and Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 567
* 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
* 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]
* Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar (1999) 3 SCC 722
* Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh (2008) 12 SCC 796
* 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
* UP Power Corporation Ltd. v. Virenddra Lal, (2013) 10 SCC 39
* Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers, (2003) 6 SCC 659
* Union of India vs. Namit Sharma (2013) 10 SCC 359
* 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