2026:HHC:15342 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10227 of 2023. Date of decision: 07.05.2026. _____________________________________________________________________________ M/s India Steel Continental Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others …Respondents. ____________________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 _____________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner. Mr. J.S. Bedi and Mr. Goverdhan Lal Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sushant Keparate, Additional Advocate General & Ms. Swati Draik, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 2 & 7. Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hitansh Raj, Advocate, vice Ms. Godawari, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 to 6. __________________________________________________________ Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge This petition was filed, challenging constitutional validity of Sections 69 and 132 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, being 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:15342 CWP No. 10227 of 2023 beyond legislative competence and violative of Articles 14, 20 and 21 of Constitution of India. 2. Undisputedly, this constitutional validity of these Sections has already been upheld by the Apex Court in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and others, (2025) 6 SCC 545, therefore, this prayer does not survive. 3. Second prayer made by the petitioner was to direct the respondents-authorities of DGGI, Jaipur to transfer the proceedings/investigation to the authorities of DGGI, Himachal Pradesh. 4. Undisputedly, DGGI, Himachal Pradesh has not issued any notice to the petitioner on the same subject matter and, therefore, this prayer is not sustainable. Even otherwise, in the reply, it has been stated on behalf of respondents, which remain undisputed, that DGGI, Jaipur Unit has transferred the investigation against the petitioner to DGGI Delhi Zonal Unit, as Delhi Zonal Unit is already conducting investigation against the petitioner and the suppliers of the petitioner are mostly Delhi based and further, that investigation against the petitioner is going on in peaceful manner and no coercive action against the petitioner had been taken till filing of the reply by the DGGI, Delhi Zonal Unit, as far as the petitioner was co-operating in the on going investigation. 5. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per instructions imparted to him, investigation has now transferred 3 2026:HHC:15342 CWP No. 10227 of 2023 from DGGI, Delhi Zonal Unit to Himachal Pradesh, State Taxes Authorities. In absence of any material on record or authentic information, we feel that no comment on this issue is required and in case investigation has already been transferred, then it shall be completed by the appropriate authority, in accordance with law. 6. In view of above, second prayer is also not sustainable. 7. Accordingly, petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. (Ranjan Sharma), 7th May, 2026 (susheel) Judge.