2018 (2) TMI 1539 - HC - GST

Court dismisses petition for Mandamus against Goods and Services Tax Council decisions.

Sandipkumar Kirankumar Sharma Versus State Election Commission, And 2

The court dismissed a petition seeking a writ of Mandamus to postpone a meeting and nullify decisions of the Goods and Services Tax Council, as the ... GST Council meetings - Postponement of meeting - violation of Election Code - It is alleged that the recommendations made in the 9th and 10th November, 2017 Council meeting are only to appease the voters in the ensuing elections. Held that: - By virtue of constitutional amendment, Article 279A is inserted, which empowers the Hon'ble President to constitute a Council to be called the Goods and Services Tax Council. Under Article 279A(4), Goods and Services Tax Council is empowered to make its recommendations to the Union and the States, on taxes, cesses and surcharges etc. As per Article 279A(9), every decision of the Council is to be taken in a meeting, where majority of not less than three fourths of the weighted votes of the members present and voted - The recommendations made by the Council are ultimately to be accepted by the government. Merely because the Council has met and made its recommendations, it cannot be said that such recommendations and steps taken by the Council are in violation of the model Code of Conduct, which is in operation in the State of Gujarat. Petition dismissed. Issues:1. Petition seeking writ of Mandamus for postponement of a meeting and declaration of decisions.2. Allegation of meeting conducted in violation of Election Code.3. Constitutional validity of Goods and Services Tax Council's recommendations.4. Comparison with past legal cases regarding election influence.5. Dismissal of petition at the stage of admission.Analysis:1. The petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation sought a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the postponement of a meeting and to prevent the public declaration of decisions until after the elections. The petitioner also requested to declare the decisions of the Goods and Services Tax Council null and void. However, as the meeting had already taken place, the relief sought became infructuous. The court considered the relief sought in light of the Election Code's operation during the election period.2. The petitioner alleged that the meeting of the Goods and Services Tax Council, held during the election period, was a political strategy to influence voters and violate the Election Code. The court heard arguments from both parties, where the respondent highlighted that the Council is an independent body constituted under the Constitution to make recommendations periodically. The respondent argued that the Council's recommendations are not in violation of the Election Code as they are part of its constitutional mandate.3. The court examined the constitutional validity of the Goods and Services Tax Council's recommendations, emphasizing that the Council operates under Article 279A of the Constitution. It was clarified that the Council's recommendations are to be accepted by the government and are made through meetings where decisions require a majority vote. The court affirmed that the Council's meetings and recommendations are constitutionally permissible and not in violation of the Election Code.4. Reference was made to a past legal case where a petition to stop the presentation of the Budget before elections was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The court highlighted that the body constituted under the Constitution, like the Goods and Services Tax Council, is mandated to meet periodically to make recommendations. The court concluded that there was no basis for the petitioner's allegations of the meeting being held to influence voters and found no merit in the petition.5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition at the stage of admission, citing the lack of merit in the petitioner's claims. No costs were awarded in the matter. The judgment emphasized the constitutional validity of the Goods and Services Tax Council's actions and the lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's allegations of election influence.