Subway questions constitutional validity of anti-profiteering provisions

Questions the authority over including it as respondent in a case against its franchisee

Subway
Subway
Indivjal Dhasmana New Delhi
2 min read Last Updated : Aug 09 2021 | 10:31 PM IST
Subway Systems India Private Ltd, the licensee of the Subway brand in the country, on Monday questioned the National Anti-profiteering Authority in the Delhi High Court for making it a respondent in a case against its franchisee. 

Subway Systems also raised the issue of constitutional validity of setting up the authority without prescribing a methodology to calculate the profiteered amount, said Abhishek Rastogi, counsel of the company and partner at Khaitan & Co.

Other companies also raised the issue of constitutional validity of the authority. 

This particular case relates to the alleged profiteering by the franchisee after goods and services tax (GST) was reduced. 

The company said the authority and its investigation wing computed the alleged profiteered amount arbitrarily on the pretext that Subway Systems did not provide invoice and item-wise data of its franchisee.

Subway Systems told the court that its inclusion as the respondent in the case is a gross violation of natural justice. The authority had stated that Subway Systems did not submit records and information that was supposed to be maintained by its franchisee.

Rastogi said the moot point remains the test of constitutionality of anti-profiteering provisions in the absence of prescribed methodology to determine the quantum of profiteering.

“Once this aspect of constitutionality is decided, other related points, including the quantum of profiteering for different sectors, would come into play,” he said.

About 51 companies have filed petitions against anti-profiteering provisions under GST. Besides Subway Systems, Hindustan Unilever, Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, Philips, Acme Developers, Samsonite, Jubilant Foods, Nestle, Whirlpool, Samsung, Subway, Reckitt Benckiser and Patanjali are the petitioners. 

The court, which had clubbed the petitions, had posted the matter for next hearing on September 1.

One subscription. Two world-class reads.

Already subscribed? Log in

Subscribe to read the full story →
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

Topics :SubwayCompaniesfranchise

Next Story