Victora Automotive Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Held
The petitioner's counsel made a statement at the Bar indicating that they had instructions not to pursue the writ petition. In light of this statement, the High Court disposed of the writ petition as not pressed. No findings were made on the merits of the constitutional or vires challenges to Rule 86-A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The court did not decide the issues regarding the alleged violations of Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), or the alleged ultra vires nature of Rule 86-A. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition as not pressed, and any pending applications were also disposed of accordingly.
Facts
The petitioner, Victora Automotive Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the blocking of its electronic ledger, as indicated by the website status (Annexure P-1). The petition also challenged notification dated 26.12.2019 (Annexure P-11), which introduced Rule 86-A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner alleged that Rule 86-A was violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and ultra vires the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondents were the Union of India and others, including the CBIC and respondent No.6.
Key Issues
1. Whether Rule 86-A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, enacted via notification dated 26.12.2019, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether Rule 86-A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, enacted via notification dated 26.12.2019, is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 3. Whether Rule 86-A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, enacted via notification dated 26.12.2019, is ultra vires the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that Rule 86-A was unconstitutional and beyond the scope of the parent Act. The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC and Senior Standing counsel for respondent No.6, were present. However, the judgment records no specific arguments advanced by the respondents.
Sections Cited
Rule 86-A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-14161-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 09.11.2022 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: Mr. N.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Kalra, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-CBIC. Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Senior Standing counsel for respondent No.
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
(Oral)
Challenge in the present petition is to the website status (Annexure P-1) in terms of which the electronic ledger of the petitioner has been blocked. Further challenge is to the notification dated 26.12.2019 (Annexure P-11) whereby Rule 86-A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 has been enacted and the same are being alleged to be violative of Article 14 and Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India as also ultra vires of the parent Act i.e. Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Learned counsel representing the petitioner makes a statement at the Bar that he has instruct
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.