Cost of INR 1,00,000 imposed on Petitioner
In a recent development at the Patna High Court, the division bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K Chandran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar dismissed Civil Writ Petition No.7483 of 2017 filed by Mr. Amit Pandey, an Advocate, represented through his advocates Ashwini Kumar and Mr. Manaur Alam. The petition challenged certain provisions of the 101st Constitutional Amendment Act of 2016, alleging violation of the basic structure of the Constitution.
The core contention of the petitioner, presented by Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner via video conferencing, focused on the explanation attached to Article 246A. The petitioner argued that this explanation, which empowers the GST Council to levy GST on various petroleum products, effectively confers the power to amend the Constitution to the GST Council—an executive body formed by Presidential Order.
According to Mr. Kumar, these goods remain under Entry 84 of List I and Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, where the Union Parliament holds the power to levy excise duty on their manufacture, and States have the authority to levy sales tax on their sale. The petitioner contended that allowing the Union to impose taxes on the supply of these goods, based merely on the recommendation of the GST Council, encroaches upon the States’ taxation powers, thereby violating the Constitution’s basic features.
Furthermore, the petitioner argued that Article 279A, which delineates the functions and powers of the GST Council, breaches the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. The GST Council, as per the petitioner, not only recommends tax legislation but also adjudicates disputes, which should be within the purview of a separate and independent judiciary.
Another issue raised was the allocation of voting weightage within the GST Council, where the Center holds one-third of the weightage, and all States together hold two-thirds. The petitioner contended that this skewed voting pattern gives the Center a veto power, undermining the federal structure.
However, the Hon’ble Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, raised questions about the petitioner’s locus standi to bring such a petition. Additionally, the bench found no merit in the case. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and a cost of INR 1,00,000 was imposed on the petitioner. The detailed judgment has been reserved for later delivery.
Representing the Union of India, learned ASG K.N. Singh, and Mr. Anshuman Singh, Learned Senior Counsel of GST, raised questions regarding the petitioner’s locus standi to file such a petition, further bolstering the dismissal of the case.
This ruling stands as a significant legal precedent in the realm of constitutional law, reinforcing the boundaries of executive and legislative powers as enshrined in the Constitution.
This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Edited:
Hemant Tanaji Mahale & Abhishek Bhagwan Godase
Law Aspirants