2021 (4) TMI 280 - HC - GST

Vires of section 16(2)(c) of C.G.S.T. Act 2017 - Submission at the Bar is that the Group IV matters were listed before Rajarshi Bharadwaj J. when the post of Additional Solicitor General was held by Kausik Chanda J. - HELD THAT - The writ petitions are to be decided on affidavits.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to the vires of section 16(2)(c) of C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 in writ petitions listed under serial nos. 4 to 8, 12, and 19.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to the vires of section 16(2)(c) of C.G.S.T. Act, 2017:
The writ petitions under serial nos. 4 to 8, 12, and 19 of the day's list challenged the vires of section 16(2)(c) of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017. The submission made at the Bar was that these petitions were listed before a specific judge when the post of Additional Solicitor General was held by another judge. The petitioners in one of the writ petitions requested a direction for an affidavit, while in others, directions had already been provided. The learned advocates, including the Additional Solicitor General, expressed no objection to appearing before a regular Bench. The Court directed that the affidavits-in-opposition must be filed within four weeks, followed by replies within two weeks thereafter. It was decided that the writ petitions would be adjudicated based on the affidavits submitted.

2. Listing before a regular Bench:
The Court noted that the writ petitions could be conveniently heard by a regular Bench, as the Bench in question had limited time for specially assigned writ petitions. The reason for the special assignment of these cases was deemed no longer necessary. Consequently, the writ petitions were released from the current list and were directed to be listed before a regular Bench. The petitioners were granted liberty to mention the matter once the affidavits were complete for further proceedings.

In conclusion, the High Court of Calcutta addressed the challenges to the vires of section 16(2)(c) of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 in multiple writ petitions by directing the filing of affidavits-in-opposition and subsequent replies. The Court decided to transfer the cases to a regular Bench for adjudication, considering the time constraints of the current Bench.