In a recent development, a writ petition challenging Sections 2, 9, 12, and 18 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act of 2016 has been dismissed by the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar.
The petitioner, a lawyer, had contended that these sections violated the basic structure of the Constitution, rendering them invalid and unconstitutional. However, the court held that the petitioner lacked an enforceable right recognized by law regarding the Amendment Act and did not claim any harm caused to them.
The petitioner argued that Parliament’s implementation of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) regime, based on recommendations from the GST Council, amounted to a delegation of legislative functions. Respondents countered this by highlighting the extensive efforts undertaken for the transition to the GST regime, consolidating indirect tax levies under the Union Parliament.
They emphasized the constitution of the GST Council with representatives from Union and State governments, arguing that this structure was aimed at addressing tax concerns at both national and state levels.
Citing precedents, the Patna High Court emphasized that only aggrieved parties could intervene in legal proceedings. Since the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal harm caused by the Amendment Act, especially not being directly involved in commercial activities or registered under GST enactments, the Patna High Court found the petition lacking in substance.
The High Court of Patna reiterated that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for enforcing statutory rights or addressing statutory breaches, which the petitioner did not sufficiently establish.
The dismissal of the petition came with a cautionary note to the petitioner against filing similar petitions in the future.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
