Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, March 12
Four years after the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act was enacted, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today expressed prime facie view that Parliament was empowered under the Constitution to come up with special laws on the issue.
The assertion came as the Bench of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh dismissed an interim protection plea filed by Narinder Chugh against the Union of India and other respondents in an alleged GST evasion case. Among other things, the Bench was told that total amount of GST evasion in the case was of Rs 7,83,15,309.
Petitioner challenged CGST Act provisions
The matter was placed before the Bench after the petitioner challenged the vires of Sections 69 and 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. He also prayed for interim protection during the pendency of the writ petition as non-bailable warrants had been issued by the competent authority. His apprehension was that he may be taken into custody, as he appeared before the authority concerned.
The Bench asserted it was of the prima facie view that the special enactment has been enacted for the recovery of taxes, under enabling provisions contained in Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court was also of prima facie view that Parliament was empowered under Article 246A of the Constitution to enact special laws with regard to Goods and Services Tax (GST).
"The legislation enacted is for levy and collection of taxes on the supply of goods and services having special provisions for recovery of revenue. It being a fiscal matter, a distinct procedure appears to have been evolved by Parliament by virtue of a special enactment, which is permissible under Section 4 of the CrPC," the Bench added.
The matter was placed before the Bench after the petitioner challenged the vires of Sections 69 and 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He also prayed for interim protection during the pendency of the writ petition as non-bailable warrants had been issued by the competent authority. His apprehension was that he may be taken in custody, as he appeared before the authority concerned.
Appearing before the Bench, a senior counsel on the petitioner's behalf also raised a number of other legal issues, particularly the powers of the legislature to enact laws under Article 246A. He also referred to the provisions of the CrPC to contend that an offence under the CGST would be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to provisions of the code, subject to any provision contrary in the CGST Act. "Since we are dealing only with the prayer for interim relief at present, we do not intend to express any final opinion on the issue," the Bench concluded.
from The Tribune https://ift.tt/38wfqpO
No comments:
Post a Comment