2021 (6) TMI 594 - HC - GST

Constitutional Validity of levy of IGST on supply of services outside India - providing marketing and promotion services - Export of services - Constitutional Validity of section 13(8)(b) and section 8(2) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are ultra vires articles 14, 19, 245, 246, 246A, 269A and 286 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - The challenge in this matter is similar to the challenge in DHARMENDRA M. JANI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2021 (6) TMI 563 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , which has been dismissed by a separate judgment holding that neither Section 13(8)(b) nor Section 8(2) of the IGST Act are unconstitutional. It is also held that neither Section 13(8)(b) nor Section 8(2) of the IGST Act are ultra vires the IGST Act. Also Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act is not ultra vires Section 9 of the CGST Act or MGST Act, 2017. Section 13(8)(b) as well as Section 8(2) of the IGST Act are constitutionally valid and operative for all purposes.

Summary

Issues: Constitutional validity of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the IGST Act.

Analysis:
1. The judgment delivered by one of the judges addresses the constitutional validity of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the IGST Act. The judge held that these sections are not unconstitutional, ultra vires the IGST Act, or ultra vires Section 9 of the CGST Act or MGST Act, 2017. It was concluded that both Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the IGST Act are constitutionally valid and operative for all purposes.

2. The judge dismissed the Writ Petition under consideration based on the similarity of the challenge to Writ Petition No.2031 of 2018, which was also dismissed in a separate judgment delivered on the same day. The reasoning provided in the judgment of Writ Petition No.2031 of 2018 was applied to the present case, leading to the dismissal of the petition. The judgment emphasized that there would be no order as to costs in this matter.

3. The judgment highlighted the importance of the issues raised in the petitions and the thorough examination conducted to determine the constitutional validity of the relevant sections of the IGST Act. By affirming the validity of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the IGST Act, the judgment provided clarity on the legal framework governing the matters in question. The decision reflected a comprehensive analysis of the legal provisions and their alignment with the constitutional framework, ensuring consistency and adherence to the statutory requirements.