2023 (5) TMI 503 - HC - GST

Anti profiteering - Stay on the order of the authority - Constitutional validity of Section 171 of the GST Act and the Rules contained in Chapter XV of the GST Rules relating to anti profiteering - HELD THAT - There could not be any urgency for granting any interim order since the petitioner was sitting over the aforesaid impugned adjudication order for the last six months. Also, it is a well established principle of law that every piece of legislation should be treated as a valid piece of legislation till the same is declared unconstitutional by any court of law and every action taken under such law should be deemed to be valid by an authority so long it is not declared unconstitutional. Since the constitutional validity of the aforesaid provisions of law has been challenged, this writ petition is entertained. Any interim order of stay of the aforesaid impugned adjudication order dated 30th September, 2022 cannot be granted in view of the facts and circumstances of this case as appears from record and by considering the submission of the parties. List this matter for final hearing in the monthly list of July, 2023.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the GST Act and the Rules contained in Chapter XV of the GST Rules relating to anti-profiteering, and the relief sought against an impugned order dated 30th September, 2022, passed by the National Anti-Profiteering authority under the CGST Act 2017.

Constitutional Validity Challenge:
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the GST Act and the Rules related to anti-profiteering. The court acknowledged that every piece of legislation should be treated as valid until declared unconstitutional by a court of law. As the constitutional validity of the provisions was challenged, the writ petition was entertained. However, the court declined to grant an interim stay on the impugned adjudication order dated 30th September, 2022, citing the petitioner's delay in filing the petition and the need to consider the circumstances of the case.

Nature of Relief Sought:
The Additional Solicitor General argued that the relief sought by the petitioner would amount to final relief, essentially granting the writ petition itself. The court directed the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks, and the petitioners to file a reply within two weeks thereafter. The matter was listed for final hearing in the monthly list of July, 2023.

This judgment addressed the challenge to the constitutional validity of specific provisions of the GST Act and Rules, the request for relief against an impugned order, and the procedural steps to be followed in the case.