TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. Sri.K.N. Sreekumaran, Sri.P.J. Anilkumar (A-1768), Sri.N. Santhoshkumar For the Respondent : By Government Pleader, Sri. Sreelal Warriar, C.G.C, Adv. Sri.P.R. Sreejith, Adv. Shri. P. Vijayakumar, ASG Of India JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer of quashing the demand raised vide Ext.P5, for returning the appeal preferred against the assessment order to be deficient of court fees, i.e., 1% of the disputed amount and with a further prayer of declaring imposition of levy of additional court fee by the State Authority in exercise of powers under Section 76(1) of the Kerala Court Fees Act would not apply in the field of GST laws. Petitioner being registered under the provisions of the Kerala State Goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls filed under Section 108 of the Kerala Sales Goods Service Tax/ Central GST Act arising out of decisions or orders passed under the Act. Reliance has been laid to the provisions of Section 108 dealing with the filing of the appeal. 108. Appeal to the Appellate Authority- (1) An appeal to the Appellate Authority under subsection (1) of section 107 shall be filed in FORM GST APL-01, along with the relevant documents, either electronically or otherwise as may be notified by the Commissioner, and a provisional acknowledgment shall be issued to the appellant immediately. (2) The grounds of appeal and the form of verification as contained in FORM GST APL-01 shall be signed in the manner specified in rule 26. (3) A certified copy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of simplification of the tax process and by bringing uniformity in tax rates and the process throughout the nation. The levy of additional court fee at the flat rate of 1% on the disputed amount in appeal is disproportionately high as it partakes the character of tax. 3. Article 304 A and B of the Constitution of India empower the State to impose tax by putting a certain reasonable restriction which should not be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The question with regard to reasonable classification or intelligible differentia referred to is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Jindal Stainless Steel Ltd. Anr. V. State of Haryana Ors, reported at 2016 VOL. 66 SC-CB wherein t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not occur in Article 14. The expression discriminate against is used in Article 15(1) and Article 16(2), and it means, according to the Oxford Dictionary, to make an adverse distinction with regard to; to distinguish unfavourably from others . Discrimination thus involves an element of unfavourable bias and it is in that sense that the expression has to be understood in this context. If such bias is disclosed and is based on any of the grounds mentioned in Articles 15 and 16, it may well be that the statute will, without more, incur condemnation as violating a specific constitutional prohibition unless it is saved by one or other of the provisos to those articles. But the position under Article 14 is different. Equal protection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e answer be in the affirmative, the differentiation would fall foul of Article 304(a) and may tantamount to discrimination. Conversely, if the Court were to find that there is no such element of intentional bias favouring the locally produced goods as against those from outside, it may have to go further and see whether the differentiation would be supported by valid reasons. In the words of Fazl Ali, J. discrimination without reason would be unconstitutional whereas discrimination with reason may be legally acceptable. In Video Electronic's case, this Court noted that the differentiation made was supported by reasons. This Court held that if economic unity of India is one of the Constitutional aspirations and if attaining and maintaini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, correctly states the legal position as regards the approach to be adopted by the Court while examining the validity of levies. So long as the differentiation made by the States is not intended to create an unfavourable bias and so long as the differentiation is intended to benefit a distinct class of industries and the life of the benefit is limited in terms of period, the benefit, must be held to flow from a legitimate desire to promote industries within its territory. Grant of exemptions and incentives in such cases must be deemed to have been inspired by considerations which in the larger context help achieve the Constitutional goal of economic unity. 4. In view of what has been noticed above, the notification cannot be seen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
