2024 (4) TMI 848 - HC - GST

Landmark GST Constitutional Amendment Upheld: Petition Dismissed for Lack of Substantive Legal Grounds and Demonstrable Injury

HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the 101st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2016. The court found no valid locus standi for the petitioner, who ... Locus standi - public interest litigation - maintainability under Article 226 - constitutional challenge to the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 - abdication of legislative function - refusal to adjudicate merits for want of locusLocus standi - public interest litigation - maintainability under Article 226 - Petitioner's writ under Article 226 is not maintainable for want of locus to challenge the 101st Amendment. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the petitioner's standing and found that he is a practising lawyer who has not shown that he is an aggrieved person or that he has suffered any legal injury by the 101st Amendment. Reliance was placed on the principle that a stranger cannot meddle in legal proceedings unless he falls within the category of an aggrieved person. The petitioner did not claim to be engaged in commercial activity, was not shown to be registered under the GST enactments, and did not demonstrate any prejudice (for example from reverse charge mechanism) caused to him. A writ under Article 226 is maintainable to enforce a legal or statutory right or to remedy breach of statutory duty; no such enforceable right or breach was established by the petitioner, and the asserted public interest did not suffice to overcome the absence of locus where the affected class (registered dealers) are not incapable of agitating their rights. [Paras 4, 5, 6]Writ petition dismissed for want of locus; petition not maintainable as public interest litigation.Constitutional challenge to the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 - abdication of legislative function - refusal to adjudicate merits for want of locus - The Court did not adjudicate the merits of the challenge to Sections 2, 9, 12 and 18 of the 101st Amendment, dismissing the petition on standing grounds. - HELD THAT: - Although the petitioner alleged that the provisions creating and vesting functions in the GST Council amounted to an abdication of legislative functions, the Court declined to examine the substantive constitutional question because the petitioner lacked locus. The respondent affidavit explaining the composition and role of the GST Council and the legislative role of Parliament was noted, but the Court expressly refrained from deciding the validity of the impugned provisions in view of the threshold defect in maintainability. The Court also refrained from imposing costs, attributing the petition to misguided enthusiasm, and cautioned the petitioner against similar future actions. [Paras 2, 3, 7, 8]Substantive challenge to the specified sections of the 101st Amendment was not adjudicated; petition dismissed without deciding merits.Final Conclusion: Writ petition dismissed for want of locus; the Court declined to entertain or decide the substantive constitutional challenge to the specified provisions of the 101st Amendment for lack of maintainable standing. Issues involved: Challenge to the validity of Sections 2, 9, 12, and 18 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 on the grounds of violating the basic structure of the Constitution of India.Detailed Summary:Issue 1: Constitutionality of Sections 2, 9, 12, and 18 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016The petitioner, a lawyer, challenged the constitutionality of certain sections of the 101st Amendment Act, 2016, alleging that they violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The main contention was the constitution of the Goods and Services Tax Council (GST Council) and the perceived abdication of legislative functions by the Parliament based on the Council's recommendations.Issue 2: Locus Standi of the PetitionerThe court examined the locus standi of the petitioner, who claimed to be acting in public interest. However, the court found that the petitioner, not being involved in commercial activities or registered under the Goods and Services Tax enactments, did not suffer any legal injury due to the 101st Amendment. The court emphasized that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable only when there is an enforceable statutory or legal right at stake, which was not the case here.Issue 3: Dismissal of the Writ PetitionUltimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, noting that there was no valid ground for the petitioner to establish locus standi or claim prejudice due to the constitutional amendment. While refraining from imposing costs due to the petitioner's misguided enthusiasm, the court cautioned against further similar actions.In conclusion, the court found no reason to entertain the writ petition challenging the constitutionality of certain sections of the 101st Amendment Act, 2016, and dismissed the petition accordingly.