List of Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain ruled that when GST rates on products are reduced, the benefit must reach consumers through a corresponding price reduction and not by merely increasing product quantity while keeping the same MRP. The Court held that such practices amount to deception and defeat the legislative intent behind GST rate cuts, reaffirming the National Anti-Profiteering Authority’s stance. 

• The Delhi High Court held this in the matter of M/s Sharma Trading Company v. Union of India (2025). 

What was the Background of M/s Sharma Trading Company v. Union of India (2025) Case ? 

• Sharma Trading Company, a partnership firm, operated as a distributor and stockist of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) products, including Vaseline VTM 400 ML. When the GST regime commenced on 1st July 2017, the applicable GST rate on the subject product was 28%, which was subsequently reduced to 18% through Notification No. 41/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14th November 2017. 
• A complaint was filed against the Petitioner alleging that despite the GST rate reduction, the company continued to charge the same amount without passing on the benefit to consumers.  
• The National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAPA) examined the complaint, and the Director General of Anti-Profiteering furnished an Investigation Report dated 16th March 2018 under Rule 129(6) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 
• Through its order dated 7th September 2018, NAPA found that the Maximum Retail Price remained Rs. 213/- both before and after the GST reduction, whilst the base price was increased from Rs. 158.66 to Rs. 172.77 per unit. NAPA determined that the Petitioner had profiteered Rs. 5,50,186/- by not passing on the 10% GST rate reduction benefit to consumers and directed deposit of this amount to the consumer welfare fund along with 18% interest. 
• The Petitioner challenged Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 126 of the CGST Rules, 2017 as unconstitutional and ultra vires of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The Petitioner defended its actions by arguing that the product quantity was increased by 100 ml after the GST rate change, justifying the maintained price, and cited promotional schemes where the product was bundled with a Dove soap bar as a free product. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

•  The Court noted that constitutional validity of Section 171 and relevant Rules had already been upheld in Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, emphasising that the legislative mandate requires GST rate reduction benefits to reach consumers through actual price reduction, not through increased volume, weight, or bundled free material. 
• The Court stressed that anti-profiteering measures provide an institutional mechanism to ensure full benefits of input tax credits and reduced GST rates flow to consumers, safeguarding their interests. 
• The Court categorically rejected the argument that increasing product quantity by 100 ml justified maintaining the same price, holding this constituted deception and curtailed consumer choice.  
• The Court observed that the purpose of GST reduction is to make products more cost-effective for consumers, which would be defeated if prices remain unchanged whilst unknown quantities are increased without consumer request. 
• The Court cited Reckitt Benckiser precedent that benefits must reach consumers as "cash in hand" through commensurate price reduction, not through substitute forms like volume increase, festival discounts, or cross-subsidisation. 
•  The Court acknowledged potential transitional problems but held that manufacturers and retailers must be prepared for such issues and cannot defeat the purpose of GST rate reduction. 
• The Court clarified that "MRP" means "Maximum Retail Price," thus upon immediate GST rate reduction, even if product MRP remains the same, the GST component must be reduced, meaning products can be sold below MRP to pass on benefits. The Court held that all pre-existing promotional schemes ought to have been recalibrated with GST rate reductions. 
• The Court upheld NAPA's impugned order and directed transfer of Rs. 5,55,126/- (already deposited by the Petitioner as FDR) to the Consumer Welfare Fund at Central Bank of India. However, regarding penalty proceedings, the Court held these would not be applicable, noting that in Reckitt Benckiser, show cause notices for penalty proceedings related to Section 171(1) violations prior to Section 171(3A) coming into force had been withdrawn by NAA, rendering this issue infructuous. 

What is Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017? 

• Mandatory Benefit Pass-Through: Section 171(1) mandates that any reduction in GST rate on goods or services, or any benefit from input tax credit, must be passed on to the recipient (consumer) through commensurate reduction in prices. This is a statutory obligation on all suppliers to ensure tax benefits reach the end consumer rather than being retained as additional profit. 
• Constitution of Authority: Section 171(2) empowers the Central Government, based on GST Council recommendations, to constitute an Authority or empower an existing authority to examine whether suppliers have actually reduced prices commensurately when they received input tax credit benefits or when tax rates were reduced. The proviso allows the Government to specify a cut-off date after which no new examination requests will be accepted. For this purpose, "Authority" includes the Appellate Tribunal, and "request for examination" means written applications filed by complainants. 
• Powers and Penalty Provisions: Section 171(3) provides that the Authority shall exercise powers and discharge functions as prescribed in the rules. Section 171(3A) establishes penalty provisions: if the Authority concludes after examination that a registered person has profiteered (failed to pass on benefits), that person becomes liable to pay penalty equivalent to 10% of the profiteered amount. However, no penalty is levied if the profiteered amount is deposited within thirty days of the order. "Profiteered" means the amount determined on account of not passing reduction benefits to recipients through commensurate price reduction. 

Case Law 

• Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2024): 
  • The Delhi High Court (29th January 2024) upheld Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as constitutionally valid, declaring it a complete code clearly defining anti-profiteering powers. The Court ruled that GST reduction benefits must reach consumers through actual price cuts—not through increased volume, free items, discounts, or cross-subsidisation. It validated wide investigative powers beyond specific complaints and clarified that penalty proceedings for pre-Section 171(3A) violations were withdrawn, though individual orders remain challengeable on merits. 

Source:  Kerala High Court   

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen directed the State to modify the PEARL software for marriage registration certificates to include the actual date of marriage celebration, after a couple’s certificate only showed the registration date and not their ceremony date, despite repeated requests. The Court held that omitting the celebration date defeats the purpose of registration under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. 

• The Kerala High Court  held this in the matter of Athul Dini and Anr. v. The District Registrar and Ors. (2025).

What was the Background of Athul Dini and Anr. v. The District Registrar and Ors. (2025) Case ? 

• A married couple, Athul Dini (29) and Athulya Raj (31), approached the Kerala High Court after authorities refused to include their actual marriage date in their registration certificate. Having married on July 10, 2022, according to Hindu customs, they sought registration under Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, as they were employed abroad and needed the certificate for official purposes. 
• When the Marriage Officer issued their Certificate of Marriage Celebrated in Other Forms (No. 8/2022 dated October 1, 2022), it omitted the actual celebration date of July 10, 2022, showing only the registration date. This was problematic because earlier certificates issued to other couples had included both dates, as evidenced by certificates from 2006, 2008, and 2021 that the petitioners produced. 
• The couple submitted multiple representations—first to the Marriage Officer on October 13, 2022, and then to the District Registrar on October 27, 2022. Both were rejected, with authorities claiming no legal provision existed to include the celebration date in the certificate. 
• The respondents explained that marriage certificates were now generated automatically through PEARL software, designed according to the Special Marriage Act's provisions. They contended that the system didn't permit registering officers to enter celebration dates or modify online-generated certificates. Earlier certificates containing celebration dates were issued manually before the online system's implementation. The authorities maintained they couldn't reissue or alter certificates generated through PEARL software, which had been simplified for faster processing.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The High Court conducted a detailed examination of the Fifth Schedule of the Special Marriage Act, which prescribes the statutory format for such certificates. The Court found clear, unambiguous provision in the prescribed format specifically for including the celebration date, with a designated blank space for this purpose. 
• The Court categorically held that software limitations cannot override statutory requirements. While acknowledging that PEARL software might not include the complete prescribed form, the Court emphasized that this technical deficiency couldn't justify denying the petitioners' legitimate request. The authorities had a bounden duty to immediately correct the software to issue proper, complete certificates. 
• The Court made a crucial distinction between solemnization and registration under Section 15, noting that this provision specifically addresses registration of marriages celebrated in other customary forms, not solemnization under the Act itself. Therefore, the celebration date would necessarily precede the registration date. Without showing the original celebration date, the certificate would be incomplete and force couples to maintain two separate certificates—one from customary practice showing the marriage date and another from the Act showing registration—defeating Section 15's very purpose. 
• The Court observed the irony that despite claims of simplified and speedy processing, the petitioners had to struggle unsuccessfully to obtain a complete certificate, contradicting the respondents' assertions of efficiency. 
• The Court directed the Marriage Officer to issue a fresh certificate including the actual solemnization date of July 10, 2022. Recognizing the broader implications, the Court suo motu impleaded the Additional Chief Secretary and Inspector General of Registration as additional respondents, directing them to immediately modify PEARL software to conform with the Fifth Schedule's prescribed format, ensuring all future applicants receive legally complete certificates. 
• This judgment establishes that administrative convenience and technological limitations cannot justify non-compliance with statutory mandates. It reinforces that digital systems must be designed to fulfill legal requirements, not circumvent them, and that modernization should enhance, not diminish, citizens' statutory rights. 

What are the Sections Referred ? 

• Section 15 - Registration of Marriages Celebrated in Other Forms: 
  • Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides for registration of marriages celebrated in any form (other than under the Special Marriage Act, 1872 or the present Act) by a Marriage Officer, subject to the following conditions: 
    • (a) A ceremony of marriage has been performed and parties have been living together as husband and wife ever since; 
    • (b) Neither party has more than one spouse living at the time of registration; 
    • (c) Neither party is an idiot or lunatic at the time of registration; 
    • (d) Both parties have completed twenty-one years of age at the time of registration; 
    • (e) The parties are not within degrees of prohibited relationship (subject to customary law for pre-commencement marriages); and 
    • (f) The parties have resided within the Marriage Officer's district for at least thirty days preceding the application. 
• Section 18 - Effect of Registration 
  • Section 18 provides that once a marriage certificate is finally entered in the Marriage Certificate Book under Chapter III, the marriage shall be deemed to be a marriage solemnized under the Act from the date of such entry. All children born after the date of the ceremony of marriage shall be deemed legitimate children of their parents. 
  • Proviso: This does not confer property rights upon such children in property of persons other than their parents where they would otherwise have been incapable of such rights. 
• The Fifth Schedule - Prescribed Certificate Format 
  • The Fifth Schedule prescribes the statutory format for "Certificate of Marriage Celebrated in Other Forms" which includes the following critical provision: 
  • "...the said marriage has, this ……… day of 20……, been registered under this Act, having effect as from ________________." 
  • This blank space is specifically designated for mentioning the original date of celebration of the marriage. 
• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: 
  • Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs including mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto and habeas corpus to any person or authority within their territorial jurisdiction for enforcement of fundamental rights under Part III and for any other purpose.