Delhi High Court: CGST Act Sections Declared Arbitrary

The Delhi High Court declared Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 as arbitrary and beyond legislative competence, granting relief to the petitioner. The court accepted notices on behalf of respondents and directed no coercive action against the petitioner in criminal cases, safeguarding bail status. Procedural fairness was emphasized through the filing of counter-affidavits and provision for rejoinders. The court's interim order highlighted its power to protect individual rights pending final decisions, ensuring transparency through online publication of orders.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the validity of Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. Adjudication of Crl.M.C. No.5853/2019 and Crl M.C. No.1916/2019 for bail cancellation.
3. Notice to respondents and filing of counter-affidavits.
4. Direction to refrain from coercive action against the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The petition before the Delhi High Court challenges the constitutionality of Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, alleging them to be arbitrary, unreasonable, and beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament, as well as ultra vires the Constitution. The petitioner seeks a declaration to this effect, indicating a fundamental issue of statutory interpretation and constitutional validity.

2. Additionally, the petitioner requests the adjudication of Crl.M.C. No.5853/2019 and Crl M.C. No.1916/2019, which the respondents have filed for the cancellation of the petitioner's bail. This raises the issue of the court's jurisdiction over bail matters and the interplay between criminal procedure and substantive law in the context of the GST Act.

3. The court issues notices to the respondents, with Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC, and Mr. Harpreet Singh, Standing Counsel, accepting notices on behalf of the respondents. Furthermore, notice is to be served to respondent no.4 through all modes of service, including dasti. The direction for filing counter-affidavits within two weeks, with a provision for rejoinder affidavits thereafter, underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the right to be heard in legal proceedings.

4. In light of a previous court order, the High Court directs that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner in the mentioned criminal cases until further orders. The court also safeguards the petitioner's bail status in these cases. This aspect highlights the court's power to grant interim relief and protect individual rights pending a final decision. The listing of the matter for a future date and the directive for online publication and dissemination of the order demonstrate transparency and accessibility in judicial processes.

---