Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Fusion Buildtech Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 February, 2020

Author: Manmohan

Bench: Manmohan, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal

$~6
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 2083/2020 & CM APPL. 7369-70/2020
      FUSION BUILDTECH PVT LTD.              ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr.Abhishek Rastogi and Mr.Ashish
                             Vaish, Advs

                         versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                               ..... Respondents
                    Through:            Mr.Rajesh Kumar, CGSC with
                                        Mr.Saakshi Agrawal, Adv for R-1
                                        Mr.Ravi Prakash and Mohd.
                                        Shahanulla, Advs for R-2& 3
                                        Ms.Sonu Bhatnagar, Sr.SC with
                                        Ms.Anushree Narain, Mr.Vaibhav
                                        Joshi and Mr.Venus Mehrotra, Advs
                                        for R-4

CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
    HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
                 ORDER

% 26.02.2020 C.M. No. 7370/2020 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exception. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 2083/2020 & CM APPL. 7369/2020 (stay) The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

"(a) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 13 December 2019 issued by Respondent No. 2;
(b) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act read with Rule 126 of the CGST Rules are in violation of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and are therefore unconstitutional;
(c) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring Rule 133(3)(b) of the CGST Rules, to be ultra vires Section 171 in so far as the Rule goes beyond the powers conferred under Section 171 to order payment of interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum, in an Anti -Profiteering proceeding."

After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw payer (b) and (c) of the present writ petition.

Consequently, prayers (b) and (c) are dismissed. Issue notice confined to prayer (a) of the writ petition. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and learned counsel for respondent No. 4 accept notice. They pray for and are permitted to file counter affidavit within four weeks.

The petitioner is directed to deposit 50% of the principal profiteered amount. The said amount shall be deposited in two equal monthly instalments. The amount deposited by the petitioner shall be kept in interest bearing Fixed Deposit Receipts by the Registry.

List on 21st April, 2020.

MANMOHAN, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J FEBRUARY 26, 2020 SU/