9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 487 - HC - GSTConstitutionality 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.
Issues:
1. Validity of orders passed under Section 19 of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016. 2. Consistency of clauses (d) and (e) of Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 with the Constitution. 3. Existence of powers under erstwhile Entry 54 post 15.9.2017. 4. Supremacy of Section 19 of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 over other provisions. 5. Any other orders or directions deemed fit by the Hon'ble Court. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought relief to quash orders passed under Section 19 of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, alleging they were beyond the stipulated period. The court dismissed the petition in light of the judgment in M/s. Sheen Golden Jewels (India) Pvt. Ltd. v The State Tax Officer, where a similar petition was rejected. 2. The petitioner challenged the consistency of clauses (d) and (e) of Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 with the Constitution. The petitioner argued that these clauses were inconsistent with Section 19 of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016. However, the court did not provide a separate analysis on this issue, as the petition was dismissed based on the previous judgment. 3. The petitioner contended that powers under the erstwhile Entry 54 ceased to exist post 15.9.2017, making the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 unenforceable. The court did not delve into this issue separately due to the dismissal of the petition. 4. Regarding the supremacy of Section 19 of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, the petitioner argued that any provisions in Section 174 contradictory to Section 19 were unconstitutional. However, the court did not provide a detailed analysis on this point, given the dismissal of the petition based on the previous judgment. 5. The petitioner also requested the court to pass any other orders or directions deemed fit. However, since the main petition was dismissed, this aspect was not specifically addressed in the judgment.
|
