Case Law Details
Zia UL HAQ Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
The case of Zia UL HAQ Vs State Tax Officer before the Kerala High Court highlights the urgency in addressing rectification applications under the CGST Act. The petitioner sought relief from the court, challenging the issuance of certain orders and the constitutionality of specific sections of the CGST Act.
The petitioner’s counsel focused the argument on the timely disposal of Exhibit P-5 rectification application. The contention revolved around Section 16(4) of the CGST Act 2017 and SGST Act 2017, alleging it to be ultra vires to certain sections of the Constitution of India. The plea raised constitutional concerns under Article 14, 19(1)(g), 265, and 300A, questioning the validity of the aforementioned sections.
The court’s decision emphasized the necessity for prompt action, directing the 1st respondent to consider and adjudicate on Exhibit P-5 within a strict timeline of two weeks. The directive aimed to prevent undue delay and ensure adherence to statutory provisions. Additionally, the court issued a protective order, preventing coercive measures against the petitioner until a decision on Exhibit P-5 was reached.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs;
(i) To call for the entire records leading to issuance of Exhibit P-1 proceedings by 1st respondent and quash Exbt-P1 and Exbt-P2 orders issued by the 1st respondent, by issuing a writ in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.
(ii) To declare that Section 16(4) of the CGST Act 2017 and SGST Act 2017, as ultravires to Sec. 16(1) & (2) of the CGST/SGST Acts, as well as unconstitutional/arbitrary violative to Article 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India;
(iii) To grant the petitioner such other incidental reliefs including cost of these proceedings; AND
(iv) To pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would confine his argument for disposal of Exhibit P-5 rectification application in a time bound manner.
3. Considering the above submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P-5 rectification application within a period of two weeks in accordance with the law. Till a decision is taken on Exhibit P-5, no coercive measures to be taken against the petitioner.
Author Bio
