Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a petition under Article 32 challenging provisions of the GST law and the legality of an investigation should be entertained when remedies under Article 226 and the criminal procedure are available.
Analysis: The petition raised a constitutional challenge to provisions of the CGST framework and a challenge to the investigation commenced against the petitioner. The Court held that the petitioner had an efficacious remedy before the High Court under Article 226 for testing the validity of the statutory provisions, and that grievances relating to investigation could be pursued before the competent forum under the Code of Criminal Procedure, including Section 482 or analogous provisions. Emphasis was placed on the settled availability of ordinary remedies and on the discretionary nature of entertaining jurisdiction under Article 32 in such matters.
Conclusion: The Court declined to entertain the petition under Article 32 and relegated the petitioner to the available remedies in law.
Final Conclusion: The matter was not decided on the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions or the merits of the investigation, but was disposed of by directing recourse to the appropriate alternative remedies.