In a significant relief to Tata Play Limited, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday (September 23, 2025) quashed the ₹450 crore profiteering order issued by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAPA). The court directed that the case be freshly heard by the Principal Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal, which has now taken over anti-profiteering functions from NAPA.
The order came from a division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, following petitions filed by Tata Play challenging the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the GST Act and related rules, as well as the specific NAPA order against it.
Background
The dispute dates back to May 2022, when the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) accused Tata Play-then known as Tata Sky-of not passing on the benefits of input tax credit to its consumers after GST reforms were introduced in 2017.
According to the investigation report dated 6 August 2021, DGAP alleged that Tata Play had gained undue profit exceeding ₹450 crore. The complaint was originally filed by one Mr. Sumit Garg.
Tata Play's counsel, Senior Advocate Arvind P. Datar, argued that the company had, in fact, absorbed the increased tax burden after the GST rate for Direct-to-Home (DTH) services went up from 15% to 18% in November 2017.
"There was no reduction in GST applicable to our services-on the contrary, our tax liability increased," he said.
The company presented financial charts showing that despite the higher tax rate, it maintained the same package prices and effectively bore a net loss of about ₹150 crore due to the unchanged Maximum Retail Price (MRP).
Court's Observations
The bench first noted that the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the CGST Act and Rules 122 to 134 had already been upheld by the same court in Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2024). Therefore, the bench said,
"the prayer for striking down these provisions no longer survives before this Court."
However, it emphasized that each anti-profiteering case must still be examined on its own facts.
Justice Singh observed,
"Since GST rates had increased for Tata Play, the question of profiteering requires a re-look. It must be seen whether the findings of the Directorate General were based on evidence or mere conjecture."
The bench also took note of the major administrative changes since 2022. NAPA, the erstwhile anti-profiteering authority, has now been replaced by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and subsequently by the GST Appellate Tribunal under government notifications issued in November 2022 and September 2024.
Decision
Setting aside NAPA's August 2022 order, the court remanded the matter to the Principal Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal for a fresh hearing on October 14, 2025.
"The issue of profiteering needs factual determination, which falls outside the scope of writ jurisdiction," the bench clarified. It also granted Tata Play the liberty to file additional documents or submissions before the Tribunal.
As the show-cause notice had already culminated in an order, the court disposed of the related writ petition as infructuous.
Before concluding, the bench ordered that a copy of its judgment be sent to the Registrar of the GST Appellate Tribunal for "information and necessary action."
Case Title: Tata Play Ltd. (formerly Tata Sky Ltd.) vs Union of India & Ors.
For the Petitioner (Tata Play Ltd.):
- Senior Advocate: Mr. Arvind P. Datar
- Assisting Counsel: Mr. Rohan Shah, Mr. Tushar Jarwal, Mr. Rahul Sateeja, Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwari, and Ms. Daliya Singh
For the Respondents (Union of India, NAPA, DGAP):
- For DGAP and NAPA: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Mr. Vivek Gumani, Mr. Satyam Prakash, and Mr. Samit Siddhanta
- For Union of India: Ms. Nidhi Raman with Mr. Arnav Mittal and Mr. Mayank
- For UOI in connected petition: Mr. Abhishek Saket (SPCG) with Mr. Manish Madhukar, Mr. Abhigyan, Ms. Amruta Padhi, and Ms. Reya Paul
