2018 (10) TMI 1133 - HC - GST

Vires of Section 174(1)(i) and Section 174(2) of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - contravention of Sections 17(b)(ii) and 19 of the Constitution Act, 2016 - Time limitation - Held that - The issue of limitation raised in this writ petition thus stands squarely answered and in the petitioner s favor. Once a lis can be disposed of, and a grievance can be redressed, on the statutory adjudication, the other issues, especially involving constitutional validity, need not be addressed. The canon of constitutional avoidance is well established. Petition allowed on the issue of limitation.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Sections 174(1)(i) and 174(2) of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
2. Validity of the 'Posting Notice' in Exhibit P1
3. Application of the principle of constitutional avoidance

Analysis:
1. Constitutionality of Sections 174(1)(i) and 174(2) of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017:
The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, challenged the constitutionality of Sections 174(1)(i) and 174(2) of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to declare these sections as unconstitutional for contravention of Sections 17(b)(ii) and 19 of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016. However, the learned Division Bench had previously ruled on the question of limitation in M/s. Cholayil Pvt. Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner, which both parties agreed resolved the issue in favor of the petitioner. The judgment emphasized that once a grievance can be redressed on statutory adjudication, issues related to constitutional validity need not be addressed, following the canon of constitutional avoidance. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed on the issue of limitation, applying the ratio of M/s. Cholayil Pvt. Ltd.

2. Validity of the 'Posting Notice' in Exhibit P1:
In addition to challenging the constitutionality of specific sections of the GST Act, the petitioner also sought relief by requesting a writ to set aside the impugned 'Posting Notice' in Exhibit P1. However, since the issue of limitation was resolved in the petitioner's favor based on the previous judgment, the court did not delve into the validity of the 'Posting Notice' separately, as the primary issue was effectively addressed through statutory adjudication.

3. Application of the Principle of Constitutional Avoidance:
The judgment highlighted the principle of constitutional avoidance, emphasizing that when a statutory adjudication can resolve a grievance, issues related to constitutional validity may not need to be addressed. By allowing the writ petition on the issue of limitation and applying the precedent set by M/s. Cholayil Pvt. Ltd, the court demonstrated the application of this principle to streamline the resolution of legal disputes effectively and efficiently.