232/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-13995 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision :08.09.2025 Stalwart Alloys Pvt. Ltd. .... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate with Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sourabh Goel, Sr. Standing Counsel, SBIC for respondent No.1 and 3.

Mr. Sourabh Goel, Addl. AG, Haryana for respondents No.2 and 4.

***

LISA GILL, J.(Oral)

1. Challenge in present writ petition is to the vires of Sections 69 and 132 of Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘HGST Act’) being arbitrary, unreasonable and beyond the legislative competence and being ultravires the Constitution of India.

2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that controversy as raised in the writ petition is now squarely covered in favour of revenue in terms of judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India and others, 2025 (2) TMI 1162-Supreme Court (LB) Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the said case upheld constitutional validity of Sections 69 and 132 of CGST Act, which is stated to be pari materia to Sections 69 and 132 of HGST Act. While rejecting the argument in aforementioned case that legislature lacked competence to enact the said provisions, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that Article 246A of the Constitution is a special provision, defining the source of power and field of legislation for the Parliament and State Legislature with respect to CGST and that Parliament under Article 246A of the Constitution has the power to make laws regarding GST and as a necessary corollary, enact provisions against tax evasion. It was held as under:-

“75. The Parliament, under Article 246-A of the Constitution, has the power to make laws regarding GST and, as a necessary corollary, enact provisions against tax evasion. Article 246-A of the Constitution is a comprehensive provision and the doctrine of pith and substance applies. The impugned provisions lay down the power to summon and arrest, powers necessary for the effective levy and collection of GST. Time and again this Court has held that while deciding the issue of legislative competence, entries should not be read in a narrow or pedantic sense but given their broadest meaning and the widest amplitude because they are intrinsic to a machinery of government. Mineral Area Development Authority and Another v. Steel Authority of India and Another, (2024) 10 SCC 1; Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta and Others, (1955) 1 SCR 1284; Elel Hotels & Investments Ltd. and Others v. Union of India, (1989) 3 SCC 698; State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla and Another, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 33. The ambit of an entry or article laying down the legislative field extends to all ancillary and subsidiary matters which fairly and reasonably can be said to be comprehended in it. The United Provinces v. Mst. Atiqa Begum and Others, AIR 1941 FC 16 : 1940 SCC OnLine FC 11; Mineral Area Development Authority (supra); Express Hotels (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Another, (1989) 3 SCC 677; Sardar Baldev Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi and Ajmer, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 147. This settled dictum regarding the interpretation of legislative entries equally applies to the special provision of Article 246-A of the Constitution. In the context of the legislative power to levy and collect tax, a Constitution Bench of Seven Judges in R.S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer, Gujarat and Others v. Ajit Mills Limited and Another (1977) 4 SCC 98 held:

“47. The principle in construing words conferring legislative power is that the most liberal construction should be put on the words so that they may have effect in their widest amplitude. None of the items in the List is to be read in a narrow restricted sense. Each general word should be held to extend to all ancillary or subsidiary matters which can fairly