Parag Garg vs. Union Of INDIA Through Ministry Of Finance & Ors.

Held

The Court noted that after some arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not wish to press any of the prayers made in the writ petition. Instead, the petitioner's counsel prayed for liberty to file an application seeking anticipatory bail on the ground that the petitioner apprehends arrest in a case for which he has already been arrested and granted bail. In view of this submission, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the controversy raised in the petition and that the rights and contentions of all parties were left open. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an application for anticipatory bail, stating that such application would be decided in accordance with law on its own merits. The order dated October 12, 2020, was vacated.

Facts

The petitioner, Parag Garg, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 69 and 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner sought a declaration that these sections were arbitrary, unreasonable, and beyond the legislative competence of Parliament. Additionally, the petitioner prayed for a stay on any coercive proceedings, including arrest, concerning an alleged amount of Rs. 93 Crores, pending the disposal of the writ petition. The petitioner also requested that pending criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking cancellation of his regular bail be adjudicated subject to the outcome of the present petition. The respondents included the Union of India and the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI).

Key Issues

1. Whether Section 69 and Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, are arbitrary, unreasonable, and ultra vires the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that these provisions were beyond the legislative competence of Parliament. The respondents' arguments on this issue are not recorded as the petitioner did not press this prayer. 2. Whether coercive proceedings, including arrest, concerning an alleged amount of Rs. 93 Crores should be stayed pending the present proceedings? The petitioner sought this relief to avoid the remedy being rendered fait accompli. The respondents' arguments on this issue are not recorded as the petitioner did not press this prayer. 3. Whether pending criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking cancellation of the petitioner's regular bail should be adjudicated subject to the outcome of the present petition? The petitioner sought this direction. The respondents' arguments on this issue are not recorded as the petitioner did not press this prayer.