Case Law Details
M/s. Prosper Jewel Arcade LLP Vs The Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes (High Court Karnataka)
The Court further added that “therefore, the larger constitutional questions raised in the present writ petition and as sought to be canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner like the substitution of Entry 54 in List II, effect of Article 246-A inserted by the 101st Constitutional Amendment Act of 2016, the sunset Clause as the learned Senior Counsel chose to name it, namely Clause 19 of the said 101st Constitutional Amendment Act etc, are all the questions which can be raised and considered only in an appropriate case to which these amended Constitutional and statutory legal provisions under the GST law regime are applicable for a tax period which falls after 01/07/2017. The Entry 54 of List II and KVAT Act, 2003 for the tax period in question, viz. 2012-13 was very much in existence for the said period and these provisions are not under challenge. Merely passing of the re-assessment order after 01/07/2017 does not get adversely affected on the basis of the said arguments sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records leading to passing of the Order bearing No.DCCT: (Audit) – 2.8/VAT-167046839 (2012-13)/2017-18) dated 31/03/2018 passed by the 1st Respondent (Annexure-C) under Section 39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 & etc.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
