2020 (8) TMI 330 - HC - GST

Constitutional validity under section 16 (2) (c) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Bye-passing of statutory remedy - Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - As per Rule 1-A Order XXVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 a notice is required to be issued either to the Attorney General or to the Advocate-General, as the case may be, before granting a declaration about its invalidity by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. Issue notice to learned Advocate General - List after eight weeks.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to constitutional validity under section 16 (2) (c) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017; Bypassing statutory remedy under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Act, 2017; Granting interim relief and stay on demand of SGST, CGST, and penalty; Requirement of notice under Rule 1-A Order XXVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Granting time for filing counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.

Analysis:

The judgment by the High Court of Allahabad involved several key issues. The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity under section 16 (2) (c) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, bypassing the statutory remedy provided under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Act, 2017. The court admitted the writ petition for final hearing after considering the arguments presented by both parties.

Regarding the interim relief sought by the petitioner, the court referred to the law laid down by the Apex Court in a specific case and concluded that no case was made out to grant interim relief or pass a blanket order of stay. The court highlighted the amounts in question, including SGST amounting to ?37,41,282.00, CGST amounting to ?37,41,282.00, and penalty amounting to ?7,48,257, which were subject to the dispute.

Additionally, the court addressed the procedural aspect of issuing a notice under Rule 1-A Order XXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was noted that a notice is required to be issued either to the Attorney General or to the Advocate-General before granting a declaration about the invalidity of a provision by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the court directed the issuance of a notice to the learned Advocate General.

Furthermore, the court granted six weeks' time to the learned counsel for the respondents to file a counter affidavit, with an additional two weeks thereafter granted to the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit if necessary. The case was listed for further proceedings after eight weeks, allowing both parties sufficient time to present their arguments and evidence before the court.