Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 861 - HC - GSTLegislative competence of the State Legislature and contrary to Section 19 of CAA 2016 - Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 (CAA) - Demand / Recovery of VAT after implementation of GST - Scope of saving clause under the GST Act - right or a vested right or accrued right to proceed to reopen assessments for enforcing the legal obligation/liability arising before 16.09.2016 or not - Section 174(2) of the KSGST Act - HELD THAT - The very same points arise in the instant batch of appeals. Hence, by adopting the reasoning, conclusion and observation recorded in SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS 2022 (12) TMI 1137 - KERALA HIGH COURT , the appeals stand dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legislative competence of the State Legislature regarding Section 174(2) of the KSGST Act. 2. Interpretation of Section 174(2) of the KSGST Act regarding reopening assessments. Analysis: Issue 1: Legislative Competence of the State Legislature The primary issue before the court was to determine whether Section 174(2) of the KSGST Act was ultra vires the legislative competence of the State Legislature and whether it was contrary to Section 19 of the CAA 2016. The court, after careful consideration, held that Section 174(2) of the KSGST Act was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature. The court examined the provisions of the KSGST Act and the CAA 2016 to ascertain the validity of the said section. The court's decision on this issue was crucial in determining the overall legality and applicability of Section 174(2) of the KSGST Act. Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 174(2) of the KSGST Act The court was also tasked with interpreting Section 174(2) of the KSGST Act to determine whether it conferred a right, vested right, or accrued right to proceed to reopen assessments for enforcing legal obligations/liabilities arising before a specific date. The court, after thorough analysis, concluded that Section 174(2) of the KSGST Act did not confer such rights to the Dealers. The court's interpretation of this section was crucial in understanding the scope and limitations of the provision regarding reopening assessments and enforcing legal obligations/liabilities. Conclusion: In the final judgment, the court answered both formulated questions against the Dealers. The court based its decision on previous reasoning, conclusions, and observations made in a judgment dated 30.11.2022 in related appeals. Consequently, all the appeals in the instant batch were dismissed, and all interlocutory applications concerning interim matters were closed. The judgment provided clarity on the legislative competence of the State Legislature and the interpretation of Section 174(2) of the KSGST Act, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.
|