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>Court affirms GST Act validity, sets precedent on conflicting judgments, emphasizes legal principles</h1> The Court upheld the constitutional validity of specific provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, emphasizing the presumption in favor ... Constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax, Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- This Court in a similar matter in DHRUV KRISHAN MAGGU AND K.P. AND SONS AND ORS. [2021 (1) TMI 330 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has refused to pass any interim order holding that it is not inclined to interfere with the investigation at this stage and that too in writ proceedings. As there are two contrary Division Bench judgments, it cannot be said that the order passed by this Court in Dhruv Krishan Maggu vs. Union of India & Ors. [2021 (1) TMI 330 - DELHI HIGH COURT] is per incuriam. The application for interim relief is dismissed in view of the order passed by this Court in Dhruv Krishan Maggu vs. Union of India & Ors. - List the matter before the roster Bench on 18th March, 2021 along with the case of Dhruv Krishan Maggu vs. Union of India & Ors. Issues:Challenge to constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Interpretation of conflicting judgments by different courts regarding the same legal matter.Analysis:1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the challenge to the constitutional validity of specific provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner filed a writ petition questioning the legality of these provisions. The Court noted that in a similar matter, the Court had declined to pass any interim order, emphasizing the presumption in favor of the constitutionality of enactments. The Court highlighted the wide scope of Article 246A, which grants the power to make laws concerning goods and services tax. The Court also considered the applicability of criminal law provisions to the CGST Act.2. Another crucial aspect of this judgment involves the interpretation of conflicting judgments by different courts on the same legal issue. The petitioner argued that a previous order was erroneous based on a Division Bench judgment. However, the Court found that there were contradictory Division Bench judgments on the matter, making it challenging to deem the previous order as per incuriam. The Court also discussed the relevance of judgments from other High Courts and the Supreme Court in determining the legal position.3. The Court examined the implications of conflicting judgments from different courts and emphasized the importance of following established legal principles and precedents. The Court dismissed the application for interim relief based on the reasoning provided in the previous judgment. The matter was listed for further hearing along with the related case, maintaining transparency by uploading the order on the website and forwarding copies to the concerned parties through email for their records and future reference.In conclusion, the judgment delves into the constitutional validity of CGST Act provisions and the significance of legal precedents in resolving conflicting interpretations by different courts. The Court's thorough analysis and adherence to legal principles demonstrate a meticulous approach to addressing complex legal issues while ensuring transparency and procedural fairness in the judicial process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
