9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1155 - HC - GSTVires of Section 174 of the KSGST Act - time limitation - Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act - Held that - The issue decided in the case of M/S. SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) -1 AND OTHERS 2019 (2) TMI 300 - KERALA HIGH COURT where it was held that the petitioner s plea is rejected that the State lacks the vires to graft Section 174 into KSGST Act 2017 - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
Issues:
Challenge to the validity of section 174(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the show cause notice issued by the respondent. Analysis: The petitioner, a business concern, filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs, including a declaration that section 174(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 should be read down to be in compliance with the Constitution of India. Additionally, the petitioner sought a declaration that the show cause notice issued by the respondent was ultra vires the Constitution. The petitioner also requested a writ of mandamus to prevent the respondents from demanding or collecting the amounts specified in the notice. The petitioner further requested other incidental reliefs deemed fit by the court. The judgment referred to a previous case, M/s. Sheen Golden Jewels (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Tax Officer, where similar writ petitions were dismissed. As a result, the court dismissed the current writ petitions in line with the previous judgment. This case involved a challenge to the constitutional validity of a specific provision of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and a show cause notice issued by the respondent. The petitioner's arguments centered around the need to interpret the provision in a manner consistent with the Constitution and to declare the notice as exceeding constitutional limits. However, the court, referencing a prior judgment, found no merit in the petitioner's contentions and dismissed the writ petitions accordingly. The court's decision was influenced by the precedent set in the earlier case, emphasizing consistency in legal interpretation and application. The judgment underscores the importance of legal precedent in shaping judicial decisions, ensuring uniformity and predictability in the application of laws.
|
