The Supreme Court dismissed the plea challenging the Provisions of CGST Act, 2017 as constitutional challenge can be addressed before the High Court.
The petitioner, Devendra Divedi has filed the petition challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Central Goods Service Tax Act 2017; a direction for compliance with the procedure for investigation enunciated in Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; and declaring the investigations which have been instituted against the petitioner as illegal.
Mr. Vijay Aggarwal on behalf of the petitioner urged that it would be necessary for the Court to entertain the present proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution having regard to some earlier orders issuing notice, where similar issues have been involved.
It has been submitted that having regard to these orders and the constitutional issues which have been raised, it would be appropriate for the Court to consider the challenge both to the constitutional validity of the statute and determine the legality of the investigation which has been commenced. It is urged that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution is engaged in the challenge.
The three judge bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Indra Banerjee and Justice Sanjeev Khanna said that 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.
“We are of the view that the petitioners must be relegated to pursue the remedies in accordance with law. Besides the fact that the constitutional challenge can be addressed before the High Court, the grievance in regard to the conduct of the investigation can appropriately be addressed before the competent forum, either in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 or, as the case may be, Section 482 or analogous provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973,” the Apex Court said.
Therefore, the Court held that it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of a petition under Article 226 so that this Court has the benefit of the considered view of the jurisdictional High Court.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. We welcome your comments at info@taxscan.in
