Manilal Thakkar And Co And Anr vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The appellants, Manilal Thakkar & Co. & Anr., filed an intra-Court appeal against an order dated January 3, 2023, passed by a learned writ Court in W.P.A. No.28404 of 2022. The writ Court had declined to grant any interim order in favour of the appellants. The appellants' writ petition sought, among other reliefs, a declaration that Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/WBGST Act is unconstitutional and against the scheme of the enactment. The learned Single Bench had directed the respondents to file their affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks from January 3, 2023, a period that had not yet expired at the time of the appeal hearing.

Held

The High Court affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Bench, declining to grant an interim order. The Court reasoned that a prayer to declare a statutory provision, Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/WBGST Act, as unconstitutional, implies that the question of granting an interim order does not arise. This is based on the settled legal principle that there is a presumption of validity of a statute, and such a presumption holds unless the statute is struck down. The Court directed the respondents to file their affidavit-in-opposition not later than February 10, 2023, and the appellants to file their reply, if any, by February 17, 2023. The Court also requested the learned Single Bench to advance the hearing of the writ petition from June 2023 to either the last week of February 2023 or the first week of March 2023. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of with directions for the procedural progression of the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Bench erred in declining to grant an interim order in favour of the appellants, particularly when a prayer was made to declare Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/WBGST Act as unconstitutional. Arguments for the appellants: The appellants sought an interim order, implying a need for immediate relief pending the final adjudication of their writ petition, which challenges the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/WBGST Act. Arguments for the revenue/State: The revenue and State respondents did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment regarding the interim order. However, the learned Single Bench's decision to decline the interim order was based on the principle that there is a presumption of validity of a statute, and granting an interim order would go against this principle before the statute is struck down.