Delhi High Court - Orders
Parag Garg vs Union Of India Through Ministry Of ... on 18 December, 2020
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Manmohan, Sanjeev Narula
$~Suppl.35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7758/2020 & CM APPLs. 25574-25575/2020
AND 32854/2020
PARAG GARG ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harsh Sethi, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Reshesh Mani Tripathi, Advocate
with Mr. Akshay Makhija, Advocate
for UOI.
Mr. S.V. Raju, Ld. ASG with
Mr. Ravi Prakash, Mr. Aditya
Shekhar, Mr. Shahan Ulla, Mr.
Farman Ali, Mr. Guntur Pramod
Kumar, Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Ms.
Sairica S. Raju, Mr. Shaurya R Rai,
Ms. Zeal Shah, Advocates for R-
4/DGGI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 18.12.2020 The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to summon the record and:
i) Declare that Section 69 and 132 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 being arbitrary, unreasonable and beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament are ultra vires to the Constitution of India;
ii) It is further prayed that to avoid the remedy being rendered fait accompli during the pendency of the present proceedings any pending/future coercive proceedings such as Arrest of the Petitioner by the Respondents and/or any Statutory Body in respect of the alleged amount of Rs.93 Cr may kindly be stayed till the pendency of the present proceedings;
iii) Pass an order directing that Crl. M.C No. 5853/2019 filed by the Respondents before this Hon'ble Court seeking cancellation of Regular Bail granted to the Petitioner on 14.11.2019 and Crl.
M.C No.1916/2019 filed by the Respondents before this Hon'ble Court seeking cancellation of 2nd Regular Bail granted to the Petitioner on 24.09.2020, which proceedings no interim orders have been passed, be adjudicated subject to the outcome of the present petition;
iv) Pass such or similar order as deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case."
After some arguments, learned counsel for petitioner does not wish to press any of the aforesaid prayers. He, however, prays that he should be given liberty to file an application seeking anticipatory bail on the ground that the petitioner apprehends arrest in a case in which he has already been arrested and granted bail.
In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an application for anticipatory bail. The order dated 12th October, 2020 stands vacated.
It is, however, clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open. The anticipatory bail shall be decided in accordance with law on its own merit.
The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
MANMOHAN, J SANJEEV NARULA, J DECEMBER 18, 2020 AS