2019 (2) TMI 829 - HC - GST

Calling for records - applicability of time limitation under Section 25 of the KVAT Act, 2003 - vires of clauses (d) and (e) of Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - existence of powers under erstwhile Entry 54 post 15.09.2017 - the decision 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 relied upon.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of pre-assessment notice under Section 19 of the Constitution One Hundred and First Amendment Act and Section 25 of the KVAT Act, 2003.
2. Legality of clauses (d) and (e) of Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 in relation to the Constitution.
3. Existence of powers under erstwhile Entry 54 post 15.09.2017 and enforcement of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act.
4. Supremacy of Constitution over conflicting statutory provisions.
5. Interpretation of the relationship between Section 19 of the Constitution Amendment Act and Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief regarding the pre-assessment notice's validity, arguing that it was issued beyond the stipulated period under Section 19 of the Constitution One Hundred and First Amendment Act and was time-barred under Section 25 of the KVAT Act, 2003. The petitioner requested a writ of certiorari to quash the notice and a writ of mandamus to stay further steps based on the notice.

2. The petitioner challenged the consistency of clauses (d) and (e) of Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 with the provisions of Section 19 of the Constitution One Hundred and First Amendment Act, 2016. The petitioner contended that these clauses were ultravires to the Constitution of India, alleging inconsistency and contradiction.

3. Another issue raised was the existence of powers under erstwhile Entry 54 post 15.09.2017 and the enforcement of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner argued that the provisions of the Act could not be enforced after 15.09.2017 unless the old Entry 54 was saved, implying a lack of authority post the specified date.

4. The petitioner also contended that in case of inconsistency between constitutional provisions and statutory laws, the Constitution should prevail over the statute. The argument was made that provisions of Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, conflicting with the Constitution, were legally invalid.

5. Lastly, the interpretation of the relationship between Section 19 of the Constitution Amendment Act and Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 was debated. The petitioner asserted that Section 19 held supremacy over other sections of the Constitution Amendment Act, rendering any conflicting provisions in Section 174 unconstitutional. The petitioner sought appropriate orders or directions from the court in light of the arguments presented.