In Re: Alleged cartelisation in supply of LPG Cylinders procured through tenders by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) Vs. Allampally Brothers Ltd. & Others (Part 2)
- Citation01/2014 (In Re: Alleged cartelisation in supply)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commission may defer quantifying a penalty on an individual found liable under Section 48 where he has not furnished the income tax returns needed to compute it, and may fix the penalty once those returns are furnished. The penalty is then computed under Section 27 at the same rate applied to the other individuals in the earlier order: 1% of the individual's average income for financial years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
In Re: Alleged cartelisation in supply of LPG Cylinders procured through tenders by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL)
Order under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002
1. In the instant matter, the Commission passed an order dated 09.08.2019, under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act) imposing penalty on 51 Opposite Parties at the rate of 1% of their average relevant turnover for the financial years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. Vide the said order, Commission also imposed penalty on individuals of 51 Opposite Parties found liable under Section 48 of the Act, at the rate of 1 percent of their average income of the financial years 2013-14, 2014- 15 and 2015-16.
2. Out of the aforesaid individuals of the Opposite Parties, the amount of penalty with respect to one individual namely, Mr. Nishant Mittal, Director of Raghupati Synergy Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party No. 26 could not be determined as Mr. Nishant Mittal had not furnished copies of his income tax returns for financial years 2013-14, 2014-2015 and 2015-16. With respect to imposition of penalty upon Mr. Nishant Mittal, the Commission in Para 131 of the order dated 09.08.2019, stated as under:
“With respect to imposition of penalty on Mr. Nishant Mittal, Director of Raghupati Synergy Pvt. Ltd., the Commission observed that appropriate orders would be passed in due course upon furnishing of copies of income tax returns for the financial years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 by him.”
3. The Commission notes that in terms of the directions of the Commission contained in order dated 09.08.2019, Mr. Nishant Mittal has now furnished copies of his income tax returns for the financial years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 (ITRs) on 28.08.2019.
4. Today the Commission having considered the said ITRs filed by Mr. Mittal, decided to impose a penalty upon him, in terms of provision of Section 27 of the Act, at the same rate at which it was imposed on other individuals in the order dated 09.08.2019
Suo-Motu Case No. 01 of 2014 1 i.e. 1% of his average income of financial years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. The same is provided in the table below:
(In Rupees) S.No. Party 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total Average 1% of Income average income 1. M r. Nishant 9,36,382 5,27,295 8,84,979 23,48,656 7,82,885 7,829 Mittal, Director of Raghupati Synergy Pvt. Ltd.
5. Mr. Nishant Mittal is directed to deposit the amount of penalty within 60 days of the receipt of this order.
6. The Secretary is directed to send a copy of the order passed today alongwith copy of the order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the Commission under Section 27 of the Act, to Mr. Nishant Mittal.
Sd/- Sd/- (Sangeeta Verma) (Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi) Member Member
Sd/- (Ashok Kumar Gupta) Chairperson
Suo-Motu Case No. 01 of 2014 2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free