2019 (2) TMI 328 - HC - GST

Vires of Articles 246A of the Constitution of India - Section 19 of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 - clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Sub Section 2 of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Act 2017 - Held that - The issues stand squarely covered against the petitioner by judgment in the matter of SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 2019 (2) TMI 300 - KERALA HIGH COURT and connected cases - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Validity of Exhibit-P1 assessment order for the year 2012-13
2. Constitutionality of Clause (d) and (e) of Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
3. Existence of powers under erstwhile Entry 54 post-15.9.2017
4. Conflict between statutory provisions and constitutional provisions
5. Supremacy of Section 19 of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 over Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Act 2017

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought to quash the Exhibit-P1 assessment order for the year 2012-13. However, the judgment in W.P.(C) No.11335 of 2018 and connected cases, dated 11th January 2019, has already covered similar issues against the petitioner. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition based on the precedent set by the referred judgment.

2. The challenge regarding the constitutionality of Clause (d) and (e) of Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was raised by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that these clauses are inconsistent and contradictory with the provisions of Section 19 of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, rendering them ultravires to the Constitution of India. However, the court, in line with the previous judgment, dismissed the petition, indicating that the issues raised were already settled against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner also contested the existence of powers under erstwhile Entry 54 post-15.9.2017, claiming that the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act cannot be enforced after this date unless the old Entry 54 is saved. Despite this argument, the court, following the earlier judgment, dismissed the petition, maintaining consistency in its decisions.

4. Another aspect raised was the conflict between statutory provisions and constitutional provisions. The petitioner emphasized that in case of inconsistency, the constitutional provisions should prevail over statutory provisions. However, the court, guided by the previous judgment, dismissed the petition, indicating that the issues had already been addressed and decided against the petitioner.

5. Lastly, the petitioner highlighted the supremacy of Section 19 of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 over Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Act 2017. The petitioner argued that any provision in Section 174 contrary to Section 19 is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the court, in alignment with the earlier judgment, dismissed the petition, stating that the issues had been conclusively settled against the petitioner.