TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals Dismissed: Section 174(2) of KSGST Act Upheld, Not Ultra Vires or Beyond State's Legislative Competence.</h1> The HC dismissed the Writ Appeals challenging the validity of Section 174(2) of the KSGST Act. The Court determined that the section is not ultra vires, ... Legislative competence of the State Legislature and contrary to Section 19 of CAA 2016 - Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 (CAA) - Demand / Recovery of VAT after implementation of GST - Scope of saving clause under the GST Act - right or a vested right or accrued right to proceed to reopen assessments for enforcing the legal obligation/liability arising before 16.09.2016 or not - Section 174(2) of the KSGST Act - HELD THAT:- The very same points arise in the instant batch of appeals. Hence, by adopting the reasoning, conclusion and observation recorded in SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS [2022 (12) TMI 1137 - KERALA HIGH COURT], the appeals stand dismissed. Issues:Validity of Section 174(2) of the KSGST ActRights conferred by Section 174(2) of the KSGST ActAnalysis:The judgment pertains to a series of Writ Appeals filed challenging a common judgment in W.P.(C) No. 11335/2018 and batch. The appeals were heard together with other Writ Appeals. The main questions for decision were formulated as follows: whether Section 174(2) of the KSGST Act is ultra vires, beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature, and contrary to Section 19 of CAA 2016, and whether Section 174(2) confers a right or vested right to reopen assessments for liabilities before 16.09.2016. The Court answered both questions against the Dealers.The Court noted that the same issues were raised in the current batch of appeals. Relying on the reasoning, conclusion, and observations made in a previous judgment dated 30.11.2022 in other Writ Appeals, the Court dismissed the appeals. This indicates that the Court applied consistent reasoning from a previous judgment to the present case, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.Additionally, the Court mentioned that all Interlocutory Applications concerning interim matters were closed. This signifies that any pending applications related to interim relief or procedural matters were disposed of in conjunction with the main judgment on the substantive issues. Overall, the judgment provides a clear analysis of the legal issues surrounding the validity of Section 174(2) of the KSGST Act and the rights conferred by the same section, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the appeals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
