2023 (6) TMI 290 - HC - GST

Legal Challenge to IGST Act Sections 13(8)(b) and 8(2) Upheld as Constitutional, Validating Statutory Provisions with Nuanced Interpretative Approach

HC examined the constitutionality of sections 13(8)(b) and 8(2) of IGST Act. Initial conflicting judicial opinions led to reference to third judge. After ... Validity of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Constitutionality of IGST provisions regulating inter State supplies - Ultra vires challenge to IGST Act provisions - Scope of IGST provisions vis a vis applicability under CGST and MGST ActsValidity of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Constitutionality of IGST provisions regulating inter State supplies - Ultra vires challenge to IGST Act provisions - Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the IGST Act are constitutionally valid and not ultravires. - HELD THAT: - The Bench considered conflicting earlier judgments in the same Division Bench, one holding Section 13(8)(b) ultravires and unconstitutional and another upholding Sections 13(8)(b) and 8(2) as constitutionally valid. Pursuant to a reference to a third Judge, whose opinion held both provisions to be legal, valid and constitutional (subject to a confinement of their operation to the IGST Act), the Division Bench adopted the view that Sections 13(8)(b) and 8(2) of the IGST Act are legal, valid and constitutional. The Court accordingly resolved the earlier difference of opinion by holding the provisions operative and not ultra vires the Act.Petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the IGST Act are dismissed and those provisions are upheld as valid.Final Conclusion: The writ petitions challenging the vires of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are dismissed; the impugned provisions are held valid and constitutional and the petitions are disposed of with no order as to costs. Issues involved:The principal challenge in both petitions is to the vires of section 13(8)(b) and section 8(2) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.Judgment Details:Issue 1: Constitutionality of section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act- Judgment by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan: Held section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act as ultra vires and unconstitutional in Writ Petition No. 2031 of 2018.- Outcome: Writ petition allowed to the extent of declaring section 13(8)(b) unconstitutional.Issue 2: Constitutionality of section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act in another case- Judgment: Similar view taken in Writ Petition (L) No.639 of 2020, declaring section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act as ultravires and unconstitutional.Issue 3: Dissenting Opinion on Constitutionality of section 13(8)(b) and section 8(2) of the IGST Act- Judgment by Justice Abhay Ahuja: Held section 13(8)(b) and section 8(2) of the IGST Act as constitutionally valid in Writ Petition No. 2031 of 2018.- Outcome: Dismissed the petition, stating both sections are constitutionally valid and operative.Issue 4: Reference to Chief Justice due to difference of opinion- Order: Due to conflicting opinions, matters referred to the Chief Justice for administrative action.- Outcome: Matters referred for the opinion of the third Judge, Justice G.S. Kulkarni.Issue 5: Opinion of Justice G.S. Kulkarni on constitutionality of section 13(8)(b) and section 8(2) of the IGST Act- Judgment by Justice G.S. Kulkarni: Held the provisions of section 13(8)(b) and section 8(2) of the IGST Act legal, valid, and constitutional, with limitations on their application.- Outcome: Matters placed before the Division Bench for further action.Issue 6: Final judgment by the Division Bench- Judgment: Considering the opinions of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Abhay Ahuja, the provisions of section 13(8)(b) and section 8(2) of the IGST Act deemed legal, valid, and constitutional.- Outcome: Petitions dismissed with no orders as to costs.