Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Exemption application allowed with exceptions; writ petition partially withdrawn; constitutionality challenges dismissed. Petitioner directed to deposit profiteered amount. The exemption application was allowed subject to exceptions. The writ petition challenging the impugned order was partially withdrawn, with prayers (b) ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Exemption application allowed with exceptions; writ petition partially withdrawn; constitutionality challenges dismissed. Petitioner directed to deposit profiteered amount.
The exemption application was allowed subject to exceptions. The writ petition challenging the impugned order was partially withdrawn, with prayers (b) and (c) dismissed. The constitutionality challenges of CGST Act provisions were withdrawn and dismissed. The challenge against the ultra vires rule in the Anti-Profiteering proceeding was also withdrawn and dismissed. The petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the principal profiteered amount in two equal monthly instalments for further proceedings.
Issues: 1. Exemption application 2. Writ petition challenging impugned order 3. Constitutionality of CGST Act provisions 4. Ultra vires Rule in Anti-Profiteering proceeding
Exemption Application: The exemption application was allowed subject to all just exceptions, and the application was disposed of accordingly.
Writ Petition Challenging Impugned Order: The writ petition sought to quash the impugned order dated 13 December 2019 issued by Respondent No. 2. After arguments, the petitioner withdrew prayers (b) and (c) of the petition. Consequently, prayers (b) and (c) were dismissed, and notice was confined to prayer (a) of the writ petition. Respondents were given four weeks to file a counter affidavit.
Constitutionality of CGST Act Provisions: The writ petition also challenged the constitutionality of Section 171 of the CGST Act read with Rule 126 of the CGST Rules, alleging violations of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioner withdrew these challenges, and they were dismissed.
Ultra Vires Rule in Anti-Profiteering Proceeding: Another challenge in the writ petition was against Rule 133(3)(b) of the CGST Rules, alleging it to be ultra vires Section 171 for ordering payment of interest at 18 percent per annum in an Anti-Profiteering proceeding. This challenge was also withdrawn by the petitioner and dismissed.
The petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the principal profiteered amount in two equal monthly instalments, to be kept in interest-bearing Fixed Deposit Receipts by the Registry. The case was listed for further proceedings on 21st April 2020.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
of 
TaxTMI 
