Case Law Details
Amit Pandey Vs Union of India (Patna High Court)
The recent judgment by the Patna High Court dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the provisions of the 101st Constitutional Amendment regarding the enactment of Goods and Services Tax (GST) laws has stirred significant debate. Filed by a lawyer, the PIL questioned the validity of certain sections of the amendment, alleging a violation of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. However, the court’s decision has implications not only for the legal fraternity but also for the broader understanding of constitutional law and tax governance in India.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Petitioner’s Allegations: The petitioner contended that specific sections of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016, particularly Sections 2, 9, 12, and 18, contravene the foundational principles of the Indian Constitution. The argument pivoted on the establishment of the GST Council, suggesting it as an encroachment upon legislative functions.
2. Counter Affidavit: Respondents, including the Union of India, presented a comprehensive counter affidavit emphasizing the exhaustive deliberation involved in transitioning to the GST regime. They highlighted the necessity of a unified tax framework and the constitutional mandate for such a shift. The formation of the GST Council was justified as a mechanism to address both national and state-specific concerns, ensuring representation from all stakeholders.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
