9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 502 - HC - GSTConstitutional validity of Section 16(4) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and also the Karnataka Goods and services Tax Act, 2017 (KGST Act) r/w Rule 61(5) of Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (KGST Rules) - HELD THAT - Since the prayer challenging the constitutional validity or the prayer to read down the provision as prayed in the petition is not pressed, this Court need not examine the constitutional validity of the aforesaid provisions and the prayer to read down the said provision. Once the aforesaid prayers are excluded, then the Court has to examine the validity of the impugned order and impugned notice. In that event, the petitioner has to approach the Appellate Authority provided under the CGST Act and KGST Act. In so far as impugned show-cause notices are concerned, the petitioner has to issue reply or take such measures as provided under law. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of without expressing anything on the merits of the orders passed or show-cause notices issued by the Authorities.
Issues:
The constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with Rule 61(5) of Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and the validity of notices and orders issued under these Acts and Rules. Judgment Summary: The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the CGST Act and KGST Act, as well as the notices and orders issued under these Acts and Rules. The writ petition was entertained due to the constitutional challenge raised by the petitioner, despite the availability of remedies under the Acts. The respondents' counsel jointly submitted that the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of the CGST and SGST Acts, along with the CGST Rules, has been upheld in judgments from other High Courts and in line with Supreme Court precedents. Citing judgments from other High Courts and the Supreme Court, the respondents' counsel argued that the challenged provisions of the CGST Act should be upheld based on established legal interpretations. The petitioner's counsel informed the court that the petitioner would not press the prayer challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions in question, nor the alternative prayer to read down the said provisions. This decision was recorded by the court. As the petitioner withdrew the challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions, the court concluded that there was no need to examine the validity of the impugned orders and notices. The petitioner was directed to seek remedy through the Appellate Authority under the Acts for the impugned orders and notices. The writ petition was disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the orders and notices challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner was granted the liberty to avail remedies under the CGST and KGST Acts for the impugned orders and notices. If the petitioner avails any remedy under the law, the time spent in prosecuting the writ petition would be excluded when calculating any limitation periods for filing appeals or responding to notices. The court concluded the judgment by disposing of the writ petition with the aforementioned observations, emphasizing that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the petitioner's claim.
|
