Presumption of constitutionality and wide Article 246A powers led the Delhi High Court to refuse interim interference with GST investigation.

Presumption of constitutionality governed the challenge to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the challenger was required to show a clear constitutional transgression. At the prima facie stage, the Delhi High Court accepted that Article 246A is of wide amplitude and that arrest and prosecution powers may be ancillary or incidental to the power to levy and collect GST. It also treated the Article 20(3) and Chapter XII CrPC objections as already untenable in the earlier decision, and rejected the plea that that view was per incuriam. On that basis, the Court declined to interfere with the investigation at the interim stage and refused interim relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether interim relief should be granted in the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the investigation being carried out under it.

Analysis: The Court proceeded on the presumption of constitutionality and noted that the burden lay on the challenger to demonstrate a clear constitutional transgression. It relied on the wide sweep of Article 246A and accepted, at the prima facie stage, that the power to arrest and prosecute could be treated as ancillary or incidental to the power to levy and collect goods and services tax. The Court also noted that the objection based on Article 20(3) and the applicability of Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had been found untenable in the earlier decision. The argument that the earlier view was per incuriam was rejected because there were conflicting Division Bench views and the later Supreme Court order had not supported the contrary position. In these circumstances, the Court declined to interfere with the investigation at the interim stage.

Conclusion: Interim relief was refused and the application was dismissed.

---