2019 (3) TMI 488 - HC - GST

Constitutionality of section 174 of KGST Act and 101st Constitutional Amendment - Jurisdiction - power to enact section 174 of KGST Act - Held that - Identical issue decided 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.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to notice issued under KVAT Act for the year 2015-16
2. Declaration of inconsistency between clauses of KGST Act and Constitution Amendment Act
3. Existence of powers under erstwhile Entry 54 post 15/09/2017
4. Supremacy of Constitution over conflicting statute provisions
5. Subservience of provisions under Article 246A to Constitution Amendment Act
6. Interim order and tagging of writ petition with another case

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought relief against the notice issued under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act for the year 2015-16, claiming it was passed beyond the stipulated period under Section 19 of the Constitution One Hundred and First Amendment Act. However, the court noted that a previous judgment had already ruled against the petitioner on a similar issue, and thus dismissed the petition based on the precedent set by the earlier decision.

2. The petitioner also sought a declaration that certain clauses of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax (KGST) Act 2017 were inconsistent and contradictory with the provisions of Section 19 of the Constitution Amendment Act. The court did not delve into this issue separately but dismissed the petition based on the previous judgment, which covered similar grounds.

3. Another claim made by the petitioner was regarding the existence of powers under the erstwhile Entry 54 post 15/09/2017, contending that the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act could not be enforced after that date. The court did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue but dismissed the petition based on the earlier judgment, which addressed related concerns.

4. The petitioner argued that when provisions of the Constitution conflict with those of a statute, the former should prevail. Specifically, the petitioner challenged the validity of certain provisions of the KGST Act 2017 in light of the Constitution Amendment Act. The court did not provide a separate ruling on this issue but dismissed the petition by applying the ratio of the prior judgment.

5. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that the provisions passed under Article 246A of the Constitution were subservient to Section 19 of the Constitution Amendment Act, rendering any conflicting provisions unconstitutional. The court did not offer a distinct analysis of this claim but dismissed the petition based on the precedent established in the earlier judgment.

6. Lastly, the petitioner requested an interim order and the tagging of the writ petition with another case for a joint hearing. However, the court did not need to address this request separately as the petition was dismissed based on the principles established in the previous judgment.