2019 (1) TMI 1565 - HC - GST

Constitutional validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act - demand barred by limitation under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act - HELD THAT - The issue is settled in the case of M/S. SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) -1 AND OTHERS 2019 (2) TMI 300 - KERALA HIGH COURT where it was held that the petitioner s plea is rejected that the State lacks the vires to graft Section 174 into KSGST Act 2017. Petition dismissed applying the ratio of the case referred.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act and limitation under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act.

Analysis:
The judgment in question pertains to a batch of writ petitions where the petitioners have challenged Section 174 of the KSGST Act on the grounds of being ultra vires of the State's legislative power and also on the basis of limitation under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. It is noted that in some cases, both grounds have been raised by the petitioners. The counsel for all parties involved in the case have unanimously agreed that the issues raised by the petitioners are decisively settled against them by a previous judgment dated 11th January, 2019 in a connected case. Consequently, the judge presiding over the case has decided to dismiss the writ petitions by applying the legal principle established in the aforementioned judgment. This indicates that the court found no merit in the challenges raised by the petitioners regarding the validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act and the limitation under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act.

This judgment underscores the importance of legal precedents and the binding nature of previous decisions on similar legal issues. By referring to a specific judgment from a related case where similar challenges were addressed, the court in this case has effectively resolved the issues raised by the petitioners. The dismissal of the writ petitions based on the established legal principle highlights the significance of consistency and uniformity in judicial decisions, ensuring predictability and stability in the interpretation and application of laws. The decision to rely on precedent serves to maintain coherence in the legal system and reinforces the principle of stare decisis, where courts are bound by previous decisions and must follow established legal principles unless there are compelling reasons to deviate from them.