Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2018 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1009 - HC - GSTRight to carry lottery business - Use of Kerala GST Act, 2017 and police power to interfere into the lottery business - practical difficulty in following of 56(20A)(d) of the Kerala State GST Rules - Production of unsold lotteries before the authority within 48 hours - Challenge to the GST Rules, 2017 on a premise that these rules are colourable exercise of delegated legislation to interfere with rightful conduct of lottery business in the State - Held that:- Rule 56(20A)(d) refers to satisfaction entered by the authority as to the violations of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act. This Court is of the view that the above Rule has to be struck down as the State has no power to constitute one more authority under the Kerala State GST Rules to enter satisfaction as to the violations of the lottery. The Indian Constitution do not recognise police power as such. The police cannot act merely based on the information given by the Tax officials. The police power in relation to the violation of the provisions of Lotteries Regulation can be exercised only in accordance with the Lotteries Regulation. The petitioners pointed out the practical difficulty in complying Rule 56(20A)(II) within 48 hours. Explanation as above, certainly, is meritorious. The Court cannot brush aside such an explanation. How far an action can be initiated for non compliance is a vexing question to be decided by this Court. The petitioners should not be prevented from the sale of lottery for non compliance of Rules 56(19) and 56(20A) of the Kerala State GST Rules, in respect of which they have explained their practical difficulty in complying the same. In respect of the other Rules, the petitioners having expressed their willingness to comply the same in the writ petition itself, I need not advert to the consequence and non compliance of such Rules. Rule 56(20A)(iii)(d) of the Kerala State GST Rules is struck down holding that the State has no legislative competence to formulate such Rule.
|