IFB Industries Ltd Vs. National Anti-Profiteering Authority & Anr.

The application has been heard by way of video conferencing. The present application has been filed for the amendment of the writ petition. By the present application, the petitioner seeks to challenge the constitutionality and legality of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Rule 126 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Since the legality and validity of the aforesaid Section and Rules have been challenged in a batch of connected matters, which have been tagged with the present writ petition, the present application is allowed, and the amended writ petition is taken on record. Respondents are permitted to file counter-affidavits within four weeks. Rejoinder-affidavits, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter. With the aforesaid directions, the present application stands disposed of. Since in the present matter, the constitutional validity and legality of Section 171 CGST Act as well as Rules 126, 127, and 133 of the CGST Rules are involved, issue notice to the learned Attorney General. Mr. Zoheb Hussain, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the learned Attorney General. It is agreed between the counsel that issues of constitutional validity as well as legality and interpretation of the CGST Act and Rules shall be framed by consensus. It is also agreed that Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel, shall be the point person/coordinator for the petitioners and Mr. Zoheb Hussain, learned counsel, shall represent the respondents. Let common draft issues/points of law be prepared by the two counsel in consultation with the other counsel within two weeks. Thereafter, the parties shall file their written submissions not exceeding five pages along with judgments they wish to rely upon within four weeks. Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran and Mr. Zoheb Hussain shall also prepare a convenience compilation. The matter is scheduled to be listed on 3rd November 2020 along with W.P. (C) 10999/2018 and other connected matters for final hearing.

The Court emphasized the need for a streamlined and coordinated approach to address the issues of constitutional validity, legality, and interpretation of the CGST Act and Rules. This structured approach is intended to ensure that all relevant legal points are thoroughly examined and that the parties have the opportunity to present their arguments comprehensively. The process involves the preparation of common draft issues, submission of written arguments, and compilation of relevant legal precedents, all aimed at facilitating an efficient and effective resolution of the complex legal questions at hand.

This comprehensive and detailed methodology will allow for a nuanced and in-depth examination of the legal issues, providing a robust framework for the Court to arrive at a well-reasoned and just decision. The issues at stake have significant implications for the GST framework, which is a cornerstone of the country’s taxation system. By ensuring that all arguments and legal points are meticulously presented and considered, the Court aims to uphold the principles of justice and fairness.

Furthermore, the Court’s directive to prepare a convenience compilation underscores the importance of having all relevant documents, precedents, and arguments readily accessible. This will facilitate a smoother and more focused hearing process, ensuring that the discussions remain on point and that the legal analysis is both comprehensive and precise.

The involvement of the learned Attorney General also highlights the constitutional significance of the issues being addressed. The CGST Act and its associated Rules are fundamental to the implementation of the GST regime, and any questions regarding their legality and constitutionality are of paramount importance. The Court’s approach ensures that these questions are addressed with the seriousness and thoroughness they deserve.

The collaboration between Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran and Mr. Zoheb Hussain as point person and representative for the petitioners and respondents respectively, further ensures that the interests of both sides are adequately represented and that the legal issues are examined from multiple perspectives. This collaborative approach is aimed at achieving a balanced and fair resolution that takes into account the complexities and nuances of the GST framework.

The direction to file written submissions not exceeding five pages along with judgments within four weeks is designed to keep the arguments concise and focused. This requirement ensures that the most critical points and relevant legal precedents are highlighted, allowing the Court to zero in on the key issues without being overwhelmed by excessive documentation.

The final listing of the matter for hearing along with other connected matters on 3rd November 2020 indicates the Court’s intention to resolve these issues expeditiously. Given the importance of the GST framework and the widespread impact of any changes to its legal underpinnings, a timely resolution is in the best interest of all stakeholders involved. The Court’s proactive approach in managing the case proceedings and setting clear timelines for submissions and hearings reflects a commitment to judicial efficiency and effectiveness.

In conclusion, the Court’s handling of this case demonstrates a methodical and collaborative approach to resolving complex legal issues related to the GST framework. By ensuring a thorough examination of the constitutional and legal questions, facilitating comprehensive and concise submissions, and promoting a collaborative effort between the counsel for the petitioners and respondents, the Court aims to deliver a fair and well-reasoned judgment. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the GST regime, and the Court’s approach sets a precedent for handling similarly complex legal matters in the future.

Download PDF:

For reference visit:

Read another case law:

GST Case Law: