9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 315 - HC - GSTConstitutional validity of Rule 86A CGST Rules/WBGST and for reading down Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act/WBGST Act - HELD THAT - The issues raised in this writ petition cannot be adjudicated without calling for affidavits. Since the Constitutional validity of both Central and State Act has been challenged, the petitioners have to serve notice upon the Attorney General of India as well as Advocate General of the State of West Bengal. The interim orders as prayed for by the petitioners is same as final relief, which according to this court cannot be granted at the motion stage and furthermore, quashing of the proceedings also cannot be done at the motion stage. It is also settled position of law that every piece of legislation is presumed to be legal and valid so long it is not declared invalid by any court of law. No interim order at this stage is passed and any action taken against the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petition will abide by the result of the writ petition - Matter to appear in the list for final hearing after eight weeks.
Issues Involved:
Challenging proceeding initiation by respondent Nos. 2, 5, and 6; questioning Constitutional validity of Rule 86A CGST Rules/WBGST; seeking clarification on Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act/WBGST Act. Analysis: The petitioners have raised multiple legal issues in the writ petition, including challenging the initiation of proceedings by certain respondents and questioning the Constitutional validity of specific rules and sections of the CGST Act and WBGST Act. The petitioners have requested the quashing of the proceedings initiated by respondent Nos. 2, 5, and 6, as well as seeking clarification on the Constitutional validity of Rule 86A CGST Rules/WBGST and Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act/WBGST Act. The Court noted that the issues raised in the writ petition are complex and cannot be decided without the submission of affidavits. Since the Constitutional validity of both Central and State Acts has been challenged, the petitioners are required to serve notice upon the Attorney General of India and the Advocate General of the State of West Bengal. The Court emphasized that interim orders sought by the petitioners, including quashing of proceedings, cannot be granted at the motion stage. It reiterated the principle that legislation is presumed to be legal and valid until declared otherwise by a court of law. Given the circumstances, the Court declined to pass any interim orders at this stage. It directed the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks, with the petitioners having the opportunity to file a reply within two weeks thereafter. The matter was scheduled for a final hearing after eight weeks, with liberty to mention any relevant issues during the proceedings. The Court also stated that any actions taken against the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petition would be subject to the outcome of the case.
|
