The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Pandey v. Union of India and Ors. [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20282/2024 dated September 02, 2024] dismissed the special leave petition filed and upheld the order passed 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] wherein Section 2,9,12 and 18 of the 101st Constitutional Amendment Act relating to GST were challenged on the ground that the said provisions were violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Facts:
The Hon’ble Patna High Court dismissed the PIL filed in the case of Amit Pandey v. Union of India [CJWC No. 7483 of 2017] vide Impugned Order dated April 01, 2024 (“the Impugned Order”) wherein Section 2,9,12 and 18 of the 101st Constitutional Amendment Act relating to GST thereby holding 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. The writ petition was filed challenging the said provisions violates the basic structure of the Constitution of India and 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.
