9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1311 - HC - GSTAnti Profiteering - Constitutional Validity of provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT - Issue notice confined to the prayer. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 3 and learned counsel for respondent No. 4 accept notice. They pray for and are permitted to file counter affidavit within four weeks. The petitioner is directed to deposit 50% of the principal profiteered amount. The said amount shall be deposited in two equal monthly instalments. The amount deposited by the petitioner shall be kept in interest bearing Fixed Deposit Receipts by the Registry. List on 21st April 2020.
Issues:
1. Exemption application 2. Writ petition challenging impugned order 3. Constitutionality of CGST Act provisions 4. Ultra vires Rule in Anti-Profiteering proceeding Exemption Application: The exemption application was allowed subject to all just exceptions, and the application was disposed of accordingly. Writ Petition Challenging Impugned Order: The writ petition sought to quash the impugned order dated 13 December 2019 issued by Respondent No. 2. After arguments, the petitioner withdrew prayers (b) and (c) of the petition. Consequently, prayers (b) and (c) were dismissed, and notice was confined to prayer (a) of the writ petition. Respondents were given four weeks to file a counter affidavit. Constitutionality of CGST Act Provisions: The writ petition also challenged the constitutionality of Section 171 of the CGST Act read with Rule 126 of the CGST Rules, alleging violations of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioner withdrew these challenges, and they were dismissed. Ultra Vires Rule in Anti-Profiteering Proceeding: Another challenge in the writ petition was against Rule 133(3)(b) of the CGST Rules, alleging it to be ultra vires Section 171 for ordering payment of interest at 18 percent per annum in an Anti-Profiteering proceeding. This challenge was also withdrawn by the petitioner and dismissed. The petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the principal profiteered amount in two equal monthly instalments, to be kept in interest-bearing Fixed Deposit Receipts by the Registry. The case was listed for further proceedings on 21st April 2020.
|
