2026-VIL-228-GSTAT-DEL-NAPA

SGST Tribunal

GST - Anti-Profiteering - Disclosure of confidential documents furnished by the Respondent to the DGAP at the stage of adjudication by the Tribunal under Rules 129(5) and 130(1) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Applicant filed a complaint alleging profiteering by the Respondent in a pipeline contract, and the DGAP computed the profiteered amount relying on the documents furnished by the Respondent during investigation - During hearing the Applicant sought production of GST returns, returns of the other registration, annual reports, VAT and ST-3 returns and the electronic credit ledger, contending that it could not respond to the Respondent's challenge to the computation without them, that the documents relate to the past period and have no commercial sensitivity, and that confidentiality is not permanent under the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 - Respondent contended that the documents were furnished under a claim of confidentiality and the Applicant should have approached the DGAP - Whether the Tribunal can direct disclosure of the confidential documents to the Applicant - HELD - Rule 129(5) requires the DGAP to make available the evidence presented by one interested party to the other, but Rule 130(1), by a non obstante clause, overrides it insofar as confidential information is concerned and applies Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 mutatis mutandis. Under Section 11 the information supplied by a third party as confidential cannot be provided to another party without notice to and hearing of the party who furnished it. Since the Respondent furnished the documents under a claim of confidentiality, disclosure can be considered only within the safeguards of Rule 130(1), and the Applicant by-passed the statutory mechanism instead of approaching the DGAP. The regulations of the Competition Commission of India do not apply notwithstanding Rules 129(5) and 130(1). The correctness of the data and the computation remains open for adjudication, and the Applicant may raise its contentions, including utilisation of credit, through pleadings and oral submissions - The application for production and disclosure of documents is dismissed - Exercise of inherent powers under Rule 10 of GSTAT Procedural Rules, 2025 to direct production of documents in the face of the non obstante clause in Rule 130 of CGST Rules, 2017 - Applicant sought production of documents furnished by the Respondent to the DGAP, contending that the Tribunal may under Rule 10 make such orders as are necessary to meet the ends of justice, and offered an undertaking that the documents would be used only for the present case - Respondent contended that anti-profiteering matters are governed by the special procedure under Rule 126 and the methodology and procedure rules adopted by the Tribunal, so reliance on Rule 10 is misplaced - Whether the inherent powers under Rule 10 can be invoked to direct disclosure of confidential documents - HELD - Following the Hon'ble Apex Court, the inherent power of a court cannot be exercised contrary to or different from the procedure expressly provided, and where specific provisions deal with a topic and exhaust the jurisdiction in relation to the matter, inherent power cannot be invoked to cut across them. Rule 130 of CGST Rules, 2017 contains a non obstante clause governing disclosure of confidential information - The inherent power under Rule 10 cannot be invoked in the existence of the non obstante clause in Rule 130 and the application for disclosure is dismissed.

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page