2021 (1) TMI 302

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r. Akbar Siddique, AOR For the Respondent : Mr K K Venugopal, Attorney General For India Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR ORDER W.P.(Crl) No.272/2020, 273/2020 and 276/2020 1 Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, seeks the permission of the Court to withdraw the petitions with liberty to move the High Court in appropriate proceedings. 2 The writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. W.P.(Crl.) No. 298/2020 1 Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, the following reliefs have been sought by the petitioners in these proceeding....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e an appropriate Writ, order(s) or direction(s) declaring provisions of Section 137 of the CGST Act 2017 contrary to the settled principles of law, which provide that there can be no fastening of vicarious liability for a criminal offence requiring mens rea, without there being an active role being proved by the prosecution. 7. Issue an appropriate Writ, order( s) or direction( s) declaring provisions of Section 135 of CGST Act, 2017, unconstitutional as it requires Accused to disprove the reverse burden of proof not by preponderance of probability but beyond reasonable doubt." 2 The above reliefs would indicate an amalgam of: (i) A challenge to the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Central Goods Serv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (i) Writ Petition (Crl) No 260 of 2020 withdrawn on 28 October 2020; (ii) Writ Petition (Crl) No 167 of 2020 withdrawn on 7 August 2020; (iii) Writ Petition (Crl) No 241 of 2020 withdrawn on 9 September 2020; and (iv) Writ Petition (Crl) No 157 of 2020 withdrawn respectively on 14 July 2020 and 20 July 2020 in relation to the two petitioners. The earlier petition under Article 32 was withdrawn before this Court today after submissions were urged. 6 The petitioners have an efficacious remedy in the form of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the constitutional validity of the provisions of the statute which are placed in issue. Following this course of action is desirable, for th....