Introduction: The recent judgment by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Amit Pandey v. Union of India [CJWC No. 7483 of 2017 dated April 01, 2024] holds significance in the realm of constitutional law, particularly concerning the Goods and Services Tax (GST). Amit Pandey, the petitioner, challenged sections 2, 9, 12, and 18 of the 101st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2016, on the grounds of their alleged violation of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. This article delves into the facts, analysis, and implications of the court’s decision.
Facts:
Amit Pandey (“the Petitioner”), a lawyer, filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Patna High Court stating that Section 2,9,12 and 18 of the 101st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2016 violates the basic structure of the Constitution of India and, therefore, is invalid, void and unconstitutional. Further, the ground is raised by the Petitioner that the Parliament is functioning on the recommendation of Goods and Services Tax Council (“GST Council”) which is an abdication of the legislative function of the parliament.
The Department (“the Respondent”) in its counter affidavit filed states that there is no abdication of the legislative function because GST Council is asked to provide recommendations based on the fact that it addresses the grievances of the taxpayer at national level as well as those issues which are unique to the particular state. The Council also addresses the issue of apportionment of tax collected between the Union and States for which law is made by the Union Parliament and not the GST Council.
Held:
The Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of CWJC No. 7483 of 2017 dismissed the PIL filed by the Petitioner by way of writ petition on the ground that the Petitioner, being a lawyer, does not have the locus based on which the writ petition could be entertained. Also, the Hon’ble High Court further held that, the dealers who were earlier registered under VAT, and have later shifted to GST by virtue of 101st Constitutional Amendment Act, cannot be considered a marginalized section, who are incapable of agitating their rights before the court of law.
Conclusion: The judgment delivered by the Patna High Court reaffirms the principle of locus standi in PILs and underscores the legal capacity of entities transitioning to GST under the constitutional framework. While addressing the constitutional validity of GST-related provisions, the court has maintained the distinction between advisory and legislative roles, thereby upholding the constitutional integrity of the taxation system. This decision sets a precedent for future challenges to GST laws and emphasizes the importance of legal standing in such matters.
*****
(Author can be reached atinfo@a2ztaxcorp.com)
Author Bio
