2024 (4) TMI 848 - HC - GST

Constitutional Validity of Sections 2, 9, 12 and 18 of the Constitution (101 st Amendment) Act, 2016 violating the basic structure of the Constitution of India - grounds raised are based on the constitution of a Goods and Services Tax Council (GST Council), on whose recommendations the Parliament is alleged to be acting, which, according to the writ petitioner, is an abdication of the legislative functions - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court in AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA OTHERS 2013 (8) TMI 563 - SUPREME COURT has clearly held that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any legal proceeding unless he satisfies the authority or court that he falls within the category of an aggrieved person. The petitioner herein has not suffered any legal injury by the 101st Amendment, especially since he is not a person involved in commercial activities. The petitioner also does not have a case that he is registered under the Goods and Services Tax enactments. He does not even have a ground of any prejudice having been caused to him by the mechanism of reverse charge under the GST regime. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court, is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right or with respect to breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. The petitioner has no enforceable right judicially recognized, insofar as the 101st Amendment to the Constitution is concerned and he does not claim any prejudice having been caused to him - The public interest asserted cannot also be entertained since the dealers registered under the earlier value added tax regime, now shifted to the goods and sales tax regime, by virtue of the 101st Amendment cannot be said to be a marginalized section, who are incapable of agitating their rights before the courts of law. There are absolutely no reason to entertain the writ petition - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to the validity of Sections 2, 9, 12, and 18 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 on the grounds of violating the basic structure of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Summary:

Issue 1: Constitutionality of Sections 2, 9, 12, and 18 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016

The petitioner, a lawyer, challenged the constitutionality of certain sections of the 101st Amendment Act, 2016, alleging that they violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The main contention was the constitution of the Goods and Services Tax Council (GST Council) and the perceived abdication of legislative functions by the Parliament based on the Council's recommendations.

Issue 2: Locus Standi of the Petitioner

The court examined the locus standi of the petitioner, who claimed to be acting in public interest. However, the court found that the petitioner, not being involved in commercial activities or registered under the Goods and Services Tax enactments, did not suffer any legal injury due to the 101st Amendment. The court emphasized that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable only when there is an enforceable statutory or legal right at stake, which was not the case here.

Issue 3: Dismissal of the Writ Petition

Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, noting that there was no valid ground for the petitioner to establish locus standi or claim prejudice due to the constitutional amendment. While refraining from imposing costs due to the petitioner's misguided enthusiasm, the court cautioned against further similar actions.

In conclusion, the court found no reason to entertain the writ petition challenging the constitutionality of certain sections of the 101st Amendment Act, 2016, and dismissed the petition accordingly.