Mandatory subordinate rule and remand on vires revive challenges to Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) for fresh High Court consideration.

Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) was treated as mandatory following the Supreme Court's reliance on the three-Judge Bench ruling in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors, which displaced the earlier view that the provision could be read down as only creating a rebuttable presumption with discretion to levy less than the maximum civil penalty. That determination revived earlier challenges to the vires of the subordinate legislation. The Court did not decide the constitutional validity itself and remitted the batch of appeals to the respective High Courts for fresh consideration of the validity of sub-rule (5)(ii), granting liberty to amend and complete pleadings promptly.

---

---

Outcome: The batch of civil appeals was remitted to the respective High Courts for consideration of the vires of Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii).

---