Pramod Vijay Khullar vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Pramod Vijay Khullar, filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 69 and 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The Respondent, Union of India and others, pointed out that the constitutional validity of these provisions had already been upheld by the Delhi High Court on January 8, 2021, in two connected petitions: W.P.(C) 5454/2020 (Dhruv Krishan Maggu v. Union of India & Other) and W.P.(C) 10130/2020 (KP and Sons & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.). The Petitioner was granted time to amend the petition but ultimately submitted that no instructions had been received to do so. Consequently, the challenge in the present petition was deemed to no longer survive.
Held
The Court held that the challenge to the vires of Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, no longer survived. This was based on the previous judgment of the same Court dated January 8, 2021, in Dhruv Krishan Maggu v. Union of India & Other and KP and Sons & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. In that judgment, the Court had prima facie opined that the power of arrest under Section 69 is restricted to specific offences under Section 132 relating to goods and services tax, and that such powers are ancillary or incidental to the power to levy and collect GST, thus falling within Parliament's legislative competence under Article 246A or Entry 1 of List III (Criminal Law). Since the Petitioner did not receive instructions to amend the petition to distinguish their case from the precedent, the challenge was dismissed. The Court also noted that if the Petitioner had any other remedies, they were free to avail them.
Key Issues
1. Whether Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, are constitutional and fall within the legislative competence of Parliament? (Question of law) 2. Whether the power of arrest conferred by Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017, is a general power or restricted to specific offences related to goods and services tax? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner challenged the vires of Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, seeking to declare them unconstitutional. The Petitioner's counsel initially argued that the facts of the present case were distinct from previous judgments and that those judgments were not applicable, and sought protection from coercive action. Respondent's Contention: The Respondent relied on the Delhi High Court's judgment dated January 8, 2021, in Dhruv Krishan Maggu v. Union of India & Ors. and subsequent interim orders/judgments, which had upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, and refused to grant interim protection from coercive action.
Sections Cited
Section 69, Section 132
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 17.01.2025
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the vires of Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 and seeking to declare them as being unconstitutional.
The counter affidavit filed by the Respondent shows that the Constitutional validity of these provisions have already been upheld on 8th January, 2021 in two connected petitions i.e., W.P.(C) 5454/2020 titled Dhruv Krishan Maggu v. Union of India & Other and W.P.(C) 10130/2020 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 18:17:21
titled KP and Sons & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment reads as under: “34.In fact, the power of arrest conferred by Section 69 of the Act is not a general power of arrest, but is restricted to certain offences which are specified under Section 69 of the Act namely some of the offences covered under Section 132 of the Act and the offences so specified are all offences relating to goods and service tax. Consequently, this Court is of the prima facie view that the expression „with respect to‟ goods and services tax used in Article 246A, being a constitutional provision, must be given its widest amplitude and would include the power to enact criminal law with regard to goods and services tax. ******** ******** ********* ******* ******** 38.Consequently, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the pith and substance of the CGST Act is on a topic, upon which the Parliament has power to legislate as the power to arrest and prosecute are ancillary and/or incidental to the power to levy and collect Goods and Services Tax. ******** ******** ********* ******* 41.Accordingly, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that even if Sections 69 and 132 of the Act could not have been enacted in pursuance to power under Article 246A, they could have been enacted under Entry 1 of List III, as laying down of a crime and providing for its punishment is “criminal law‟. Consequently, this Court is of the prima facie view that in either option both Sections 69 and 132 of the Act are constitutional and fall within the legislative competence of Parliament.”
In view of this, on the previous date i.e., 29th January, 2021, this Court had observed as under: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 18:17:21
“1. The present petition has been filed challenging the vires of Section 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017. By way of an interim application, direction is sought to respondents to not take any coercive action against the petitioner.
During the course of the arguments, the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been drawn to recent decision dated 8th January 2021, rendered by this Court in Dhruv Krishan Maggu v. Union of India & Ors. in W.P.(C) 5454/2020, wherein, by way of a detailed order, the court has dismissed the interim applications seeking similar relief of protection from coercive action.
Mr. S.V. Raju, learned ASG submits that subsequently, the said decision has been followed by this court in its interim order/judgment dated 19th January 2021 in the case of Sartaj Ali v UOI &Anr., in WP(Crl.) 2020/2020, wherein the court has similarly refused to grant any interim protection. Ms. Manish, counsel for the petitioner, submits that the facts of the present case are distinct and the aforesaid judgments are not be applicable.”
Thereafter, the Petitioner had sought time to take instructions and to amend the petition. Today, it is submitted that the Petitioner has not received any instructions to amend the petition.
In view of this background, the challenge in this petition no longer survives and is, accordingly, dismissed.
On facts, however, if the Petitioner has any remedies, he is free to avail of the same. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. DHARMESH SHARMA, J. JANUARY 17, 2025 dj/Am This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 18:17:21
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.