2021 (1) TMI 302 - SC - GST

Powers of inspection, search, seizure and arrest - penalties and prosecution - validity of section 69 132, section 70(1), section 67(1) and 69, Section 137 and section 135 of GST - right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution - HELD THAT - The petitioners have an efficacious remedy in the form of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the constitutional validity of the provisions of the statute which are placed in issue. Following this course of action is desirable, for this Court will then have the benefit of a considered view emanating from the High Court. Though the Counsel for the petitioners invokes Article 21, this is a case involving essentially a challenge to revenue legislation. Undoubtedly, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 is a salutary constitutional safeguard to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. The Court must be solicitous in exercising it where a breach of fundamental human rights is in issue. But equally, whether recourse to the jurisdiction under Article 32 should be entertained in a particular case is a matter for the calibrated exercise of judicial discretion. There is regime of well-established remedies and procedures under the laws of criminal procedure. Revenue legislation also provides its own internal discipline. Short circuiting this should not become a ruse for flooding this court with petitions which can, should and must be addressed before the competent fora. Hence we are of the view that it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of a petition under Article 226 so that this Court has the benefit of the considered view of the jurisdictional High Court. The petitioners must be relegated to pursue the remedies in accordance with law - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to constitutional validity of provisions of Central Goods Service Tax Act 2017, compliance with investigation procedure under Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, legality of investigations against petitioner.

Analysis:
1. Challenge to Constitutional Validity: The petitioners sought various reliefs challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Central Goods Service Tax Act 2017. These included declaring specific sections as unconstitutional and ultra vires to Article 21 of the Constitution, and other sections as violative of Article 20(3) and principles of natural justice. The petitioners also sought directions for compliance with the procedure for investigation under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The Court noted that the issues raised involved a challenge to the revenue legislation, emphasizing the need for a considered view from the High Court through proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. Jurisdiction under Article 32: The Court deliberated on whether to entertain the present proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution. It was highlighted that while Article 32 is crucial for protecting fundamental rights, resorting to it should be a matter of judicial discretion. The Court emphasized the availability of established remedies and procedures under criminal laws and revenue legislation. The petitioners were directed to pursue remedies before the High Court or other competent forums, such as under Article 226 or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

3. Dismissal of Writ Petition: The Court, considering previous orders and the nature of the issues raised, declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 32. It was clarified that the petitioners were free to pursue available remedies in accordance with the law concerning the reliefs sought in the proceedings. The Court emphasized the importance of following the appropriate legal procedures and forums for addressing grievances related to constitutional validity and investigation conduct.

4. Disposal of Application: The Court dismissed the writ petition under Article 32, indicating that the petitioners could explore remedies available in law regarding the reliefs sought. The pending application, if any, was disposed of as a consequence of the decision to not entertain the writ petition. The judgment highlighted the significance of adhering to legal procedures and forums for addressing challenges related to constitutional validity and investigative processes.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the Court's considerations regarding the challenges raised by the petitioners, the jurisdiction under Article 32, the importance of following legal procedures, and the dismissal of the writ petition with directions to pursue remedies through appropriate legal channels.