9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 1092 - HC - GSTVires of Sections 69 and 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Section 135 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Sections 16 (2) (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and U.P. Goods and Services Ta Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Since, vires of provision of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 have been challenged, let issue notices be issued to Attorney General of India and the Advocate General of State of U.P. Sri Manish Kumar Niranjan, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.2 pray for and are granted four weeks' time to file their respective counter affidavits. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. Let this matter be listed along with Writ Tax No.688 of 2020, showing name of Sri Manish Kumar Niranjan, Advocate as counsel for the respondent no.1.
Issues involved:
Challenge to the vires of provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Analysis: The petition sought various reliefs including challenging the constitutionality of Sections 69, 132, and 135 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner also challenged the arbitrariness of Section 16(2)(c) of the said Acts. Additionally, the petition requested a writ of mandamus to prevent coercive steps against the petitioners until adjudication, and for investigations to be conducted in front of CCTV cameras with counsels present. The prayer also included any other writ, order, or direction deemed fit by the court to ensure justice and prevent irreparable loss to the petitioners. In response to the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel challenging the vires of the GST Acts, the court decided to issue notices to the Attorney General of India and the Advocate General of the State of U.P. The respondents were granted four weeks to file their counter affidavits, and the petitioner was given one additional week to file a rejoinder affidavit. The court also ordered the matter to be listed along with another related case, with specific mention of the counsel for respondent no.1 in that case. The judgment reflects a procedural step taken by the court in response to the challenges raised against the provisions of the GST Acts. By issuing notices to the respective authorities and granting time for filing counter affidavits, the court ensured a fair opportunity for all parties to present their arguments. The decision to list the matter along with a related case indicates a strategic approach by the court to streamline proceedings and possibly address similar legal issues collectively. The detailed reliefs sought by the petitioner highlight the complexity and significance of the legal questions raised, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions.
|
