2020 (1) TMI 1088 - HC - GST

Constitutional validity of para 2 of the Schedule II to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Goa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Sections 7 and 9 thereof - HELD THAT - Petition is dismissed. Permission for withdrawal of petition - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that such application has in fact been filed by the respondent no.5 and the same is pending adjudication - if the respondent no.5 secures any favourable orders in the proceedings under Section 102 of the Act, then, perhaps, no occasion will arise for the present petitioner to institute a petition of the present nature. However, if the respondent no.5 fails, we grant the petitioner liberty to institute a fresh petition. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Constitutional validity of para 2 of Schedule II to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Goa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Sections 7 and 9 thereof.
2. Validity of the Order dated 22.3.2019 issued by the Appellate Authority for Advance Rulings, Goa.
3. Applicability of Central and State GST enactments to transactions entered into prior to their coming into force.
4. Locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the orders made by the Advanced Ruling Authority and the Appellate Authority for Advance Rulings.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a declaration that certain provisions of the GST Acts were ultra vires the Constitution. The Court referred to a previous judgment and held that the issue of constitutional validity had already been decided against the petitioner. Consequently, the petition was dismissed concerning this prayer clause.

2. Regarding the Order dated 22.3.2019, the petitioner argued that the GST enactments should only apply prospectively. The Court noted that the respondent had challenged the same orders in a previous petition, which was withdrawn with liberty to file proceedings under the GST Act. As those proceedings were pending, the Court did not entertain the present petition on this issue but granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh petition depending on the outcome of the pending proceedings.

3. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that the GST enactments should not apply retroactively to transactions entered into before their enforcement. The petitioner also cited a case to support their locus standi to file the petition. The Court noted that the respondent had already challenged the impugned orders, and the outcome of those proceedings would determine the need for the present petition. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh petition if necessary, keeping the issue of locus standi open for future adjudication.

4. The Court dismissed the petition in relation to the first prayer clause concerning the constitutional validity of certain GST provisions. However, the Court did not entertain the petition regarding the impugned orders, as the respondent had already challenged them in separate proceedings. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh petition depending on the outcome of the pending proceedings, with the issue of locus standi left open for future consideration.