Constitutional challenge under GST rejected; writ challenge to advance ruling orders declined while statutory proceedings remained pending.

The article notes that a constitutional challenge to paragraph 2 of Schedule II read with Sections 7 and 9 of the CGST Act and the Goa GST Act was treated as covered by an earlier binding decision, so no separate relief was warranted and the challenge failed. It also records that a writ challenge to the Advance Ruling Authority and Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling orders was not entertained while proceedings under Section 102 of the CGST Act were pending, with the question of locus standi left open and liberty preserved to file a fresh petition if the pending statutory process did not provide relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether paragraph 2 of Schedule II to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Goa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Sections 7 and 9 are ultra vires the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the challenge to the orders of the Advance Ruling Authority and the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling could be entertained when proceedings under Section 102 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were pending.

Issue (i): Whether paragraph 2 of Schedule II to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Goa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Sections 7 and 9 are ultra vires the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The challenge to constitutional validity was stated to be covered against the petitioner by the earlier binding decision relied upon before the Court. On that basis, no independent adjudication in favour of the petitioner was called for on this issue.

Conclusion: The challenge to constitutional validity failed and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge to the orders of the Advance Ruling Authority and the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling could be entertained when proceedings under Section 102 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were pending.

Analysis: The Court noted that the person who had sought the advance ruling had already invoked the statutory remedy under Section 102 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and that application was pending. In those circumstances, the Court declined to entertain the petition at that stage and kept the question of locus standi open, while preserving liberty to institute a fresh petition if the pending proceedings did not result in relief.

Conclusion: The challenge to the orders was not entertained at that stage and liberty to file a fresh petition was granted.

Final Conclusion: The petition was not granted substantive relief and was disposed of by rejecting the constitutional challenge and declining to entertain the challenge to the advance ruling orders at that stage.

Ratio Decidendi: A constitutional challenge already covered by an earlier binding decision cannot be reopened, and a writ challenge to advance ruling orders may be declined where a statutory proceeding on the same subject is already pending, with liberty preserved for a fresh petition if circumstances later warrant.

---