2020 (11) TMI 232 - HC - GST

Vires of Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 - cancellation of petitioner's Bail - HELD THAT - No coercive action be taken against the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.5853/2019 as well as Crl M.C. No.1916/2019 till further orders and bail of the petitioner shall not be cancelled in the aforesaid cases. List along with WP(C) 5454/2020 on 18th November, 2020.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the validity of Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. Adjudication of Crl.M.C. No.5853/2019 and Crl M.C. No.1916/2019 for bail cancellation.
3. Notice to respondents and filing of counter-affidavits.
4. Direction to refrain from coercive action against the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The petition before the Delhi High Court challenges the constitutionality of Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, alleging them to be arbitrary, unreasonable, and beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament, as well as ultra vires the Constitution. The petitioner seeks a declaration to this effect, indicating a fundamental issue of statutory interpretation and constitutional validity.

2. Additionally, the petitioner requests the adjudication of Crl.M.C. No.5853/2019 and Crl M.C. No.1916/2019, which the respondents have filed for the cancellation of the petitioner's bail. This raises the issue of the court's jurisdiction over bail matters and the interplay between criminal procedure and substantive law in the context of the GST Act.

3. The court issues notices to the respondents, with Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC, and Mr. Harpreet Singh, Standing Counsel, accepting notices on behalf of the respondents. Furthermore, notice is to be served to respondent no.4 through all modes of service, including dasti. The direction for filing counter-affidavits within two weeks, with a provision for rejoinder affidavits thereafter, underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the right to be heard in legal proceedings.

4. In light of a previous court order, the High Court directs that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner in the mentioned criminal cases until further orders. The court also safeguards the petitioner's bail status in these cases. This aspect highlights the court's power to grant interim relief and protect individual rights pending a final decision. The listing of the matter for a future date and the directive for online publication and dissemination of the order demonstrate transparency and accessibility in judicial processes.