Court upholds constitutionality of IGST Act sections, dismissing challenge in thorough examination.

The court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the IGST Act, ruling them as valid and operative. The Writ Petition challenging these sections was dismissed based on a previous similar judgment. The court emphasized the importance of the issues raised and conducted a thorough examination before affirming the validity of the relevant sections, providing clarity on the legal framework. The decision demonstrated a comprehensive analysis aligning the legal provisions with the constitutional framework, ensuring consistency and adherence to statutory requirements.

---

---

Issues: Constitutional validity of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the IGST Act.

Analysis:
1. The judgment delivered by one of the judges addresses the constitutional validity of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the IGST Act. The judge held that these sections are not unconstitutional, ultra vires the IGST Act, or ultra vires Section 9 of the CGST Act or MGST Act, 2017. It was concluded that both Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the IGST Act are constitutionally valid and operative for all purposes.

2. The judge dismissed the Writ Petition under consideration based on the similarity of the challenge to Writ Petition No.2031 of 2018, which was also dismissed in a separate judgment delivered on the same day. The reasoning provided in the judgment of Writ Petition No.2031 of 2018 was applied to the present case, leading to the dismissal of the petition. The judgment emphasized that there would be no order as to costs in this matter.

3. The judgment highlighted the importance of the issues raised in the petitions and the thorough examination conducted to determine the constitutional validity of the relevant sections of the IGST Act. By affirming the validity of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the IGST Act, the judgment provided clarity on the legal framework governing the matters in question. The decision reflected a comprehensive analysis of the legal provisions and their alignment with the constitutional framework, ensuring consistency and adherence to the statutory requirements.

---