- (1.) Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, seeks the permission of the Court to withdraw the petitions with liberty to move the High Court in appropriate proceedings. 2. The writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. W.P.(Crl.) No. 298/2020 1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, the following reliefs have been sought by the petitioners in these proceedings: "1. Issue an appropriate Writ, order(s) or direction(s) declaring Sections 69 and 132 of the Central Goods Service Tax Act, 2017,as unconstitutional and ultra vires to Article 21 of the Constitution of India and hence unconstitutional, illegal and unenforceable; 2. Issue an appropriate Writ, order(s) or direction(s) to the Respondent to comply with the mandatory procedure under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 including Section 154, 157, 167, 172 etc for valid commencement of investigation into any offence qua the petitioner. 3. Declare the entire investigations erroneously commenced by the Respondents qua the Petitioner as non est, illegal, void ab initio for not following the mandatory procedure under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and therefore violative of the "procedure established by law". 4. Issue an appropriate Writ, order(s) or direction(s) declaring Section 70( 1) of the Central Goods Service Tax Act, 2017, as unconstitutional and ultra vires to Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and hence unconstitutional, illegal and unenforceable; 5. Issue an appropriate Writ, order(s) or direction(s) declaring Section 67 (1) and S. 69 of the CGST Act are ultra vires and violative of the principles of natural justice, as the said Section does not provide for recording of reasons to believe in writing, unlike other statutes such as Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 6. Issue an appropriate Writ, order(s) or direction(s) declaring provisions of Section 137 of the CGST Act 2017 contrary to the settled principles of law, which provide that there can be no fastening of vicarious liability for a criminal offence requiring mens rea, without there being an active role being proved by the prosecution. 7. Issue an appropriate Writ, order(s) or direction(s) declaring provisions of Section 135 of CGST Act, 2017, unconstitutional as it requires Accused to disprove the reverse burden of proof not by preponderance of probability but beyond reasonable doubt."
(2.) The above reliefs would indicate an amalgam of: (i) A challenge to the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Central Goods Service Tax Act 2017; (ii) A direction for compliance with the procedure for investigation enunciated in Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; and (iii) Declaring the investigations which have been instituted against the petitioner as illegal.
(3.) During the course of the hearing, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that it would be necessary for this Court to entertain the present proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution having regard to some earlier orders issuing notice, where similar issues have been involved. It has been submitted that having regard to these orders and the constitutional issues which have been raised, it would be appropriate for the Court to consider the challenge both to the constitutional validity of the statute and determine the legality of the investigation which has been commenced. It is urged that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution is engaged in the challenge.;