2021 (6) TMI 470 - HC - GST

Constitutional validity of Sections 69 and 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Interestingly, the petitioner, in the present writ petition, is shown as a resident of Delhi, whereas in the writ petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the petitioner is shown as a resident of Ludhiana - Mr. Manish says that the two actions are different. This and other aspects will be examined only after the order dated 12.03.2021, passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the aforementioned writ petition, is placed on record - List the matter on 19.07.2021.

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption from filing court-fee and notarised affidavit.
2. Challenge to constitutional validity of Sections 69 and 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. Reference to order dated 12.03.2021 passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court.
4. Dismissal of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4628/2021.
5. Discrepancy in petitioner's residence between Delhi and Ludhiana.
6. Examination of actions after placing the order dated 12.03.2021 on record.
7. Listing the matter for further proceedings.
8. Decision on approaching Punjab and Haryana High Court for relief.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought exemption from filing the requisite court-fee and notarised affidavit along with the petition. The court directed the petitioner to submit the notarised affidavit and deposit the court-fee within three days of the court's normal work pattern resumption.

2. The petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 69 and 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and sought interim relief against coercive measures. The petitioner also approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court with a similar petition, which was later dismissed.

3. The court noted that the petitioner had challenged the order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court through a Special Leave Petition (Civil) which was dismissed. The order dated 12.03.2021 was an interim order denying relief to the petitioner.

4. There was a discrepancy in the petitioner's residential address, being shown as a resident of Delhi in the present petition and a resident of Ludhiana in the petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

5. The court decided to examine the case further after the order dated 12.03.2021 from the Punjab and Haryana High Court was placed on record. The matter was listed for further proceedings on a specific date.

6. The petitioner was advised to consider approaching the Punjab and Haryana High Court for the relief sought in the current writ petition. The court scheduled the next hearing to address this issue and any other relevant aspects arising from the case.