The constitutional challenge can be addressed before the High Court, so that this Court has the benefit of the considered view of the jurisdictional High Court.
Section 69 & 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Arrest – The petitioner sought direction(s) declaring Sections 69 & 132 of the Act, 2017,as unconstitutional and ultra vires to Article 21 of the Constitution of India; direction(s) to the Respondent to comply with the mandatory procedure under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 including Section 154, 157, 167, 172 etc for valid commencement of investigation into any offence qua the petitioner; declare the entire investigations erroneously commenced by the Respondents qua the Petitioner as non est, illegal, void ab initio for not following the mandatory procedure. The respondent counsel opposed the submissions of the petitioner. The court observed 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. This Court will then have the benefit of a considered view emanating from the High Court.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition as they are not inclined to entertain the writ petition under Article 32. It is left open to the petitioners to pursue the remedies which are available in law in respect of the reliefs which have been sought in these proceedings.
The constitutional challenge can be addressed before the High Court, so that this Court has the benefit of the considered view of the jurisdictional High Court.
Section 69 & 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Arrest – The petitioner sought direction(s) declaring Sections 69 & 132 of the Act, 2017,as unconstitutional and ultra vires to Article 21 of the Constitution of India; direction(s) to the Respondent to comply with the mandatory procedure under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 including Section 154, 157, 167, 172 etc for valid commencement of investigation into any offence qua the petitioner; declare the entire investigations erroneously commenced by the Respondents qua the Petitioner as non est, illegal, void ab initio for not following the mandatory procedure. The respondent counsel opposed the submissions of the petitioner. The court observed 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. This Court will then have the benefit of a considered view emanating from the High Court.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition as they are not inclined to entertain the writ petition under Article 32. It is left open to the petitioners to pursue the remedies which are available in law in respect of the reliefs which have been sought in these proceedings.