TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court finds merit in challenge to Punjab GST Act sections, directs Trial Court for further consideration</h1> The High Court, after considering the petitioner's arguments challenging the vires of Sections 69 and 132 of The Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, ... Input Tax Credit - issuing sale bills to various parties without supply of goods - Section 132 of the PGST Act, 2017 - It is thus vehemently contended that the criminal trial for the offences under Section 132 of the PGST Act, 2017 as also the arrest under Section 69 are without jurisdiction, having no backing of the constitutional provisions. HELD THAT:- Notice of motion for 30.07.2020. Issues: Challenge to the vires of Section 69 and 132 of The Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.Analysis:The petitioner, engaged in the business of Trading in Iron and Steel products, was arrested under Section 69 of the PGST Act 2017 and a complaint was filed under Section 132 of the same Act. The petitioner sought bail, which was granted, and the trial is at the pre-charge evidence stage. The challenge is laid to the vires of Section 69 and 132 of the PGST Act, 2017. It is contended that the power to levy tax includes the power to make law with respect to ancillary and incidental matters, but the power of arrest and prescription of sentence are not covered under such matters. The petitioner argues that the criminal trial for the offences under Section 132 of the PGST Act, 2017 and the arrest under Section 69 are without jurisdiction and lack constitutional backing.The petitioner's submission is based on the constitutional provisions related to the power to legislate. It is argued that the power of arrest and prescription of sentence are not ancillary or incidental matters to the power to levy tax. The petitioner cites various constitutional provisions, including Schedule VII, Article 246-A, Entry 93 of Union List, Article 323-B, Article 35, and Article 369, to support the contention that the power to legislate regarding offences is not an incidental power. The argument is made that the provisions for arrest and sentencing for an offence must be explicitly permitted by the Constitution to be valid. The petitioner contends that the arrest and criminal trial in this case are without jurisdiction as they do not have the necessary constitutional backing.The High Court, after considering the submissions made by the petitioner's advocate, finds considerable force in the arguments presented. The Court directs the Trial Court to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed by the High Court. The Additional Advocate General accepts notices on behalf of the respondents, and the matter is scheduled for further consideration on a specified date.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
