https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91558 The HC dismissed the petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 36(4) of the GST Act and Rules, 2017. The court relied on prior Division Bench decisions of the Kerala HC and Madras HC, which upheld these provisions. The Kerala HC held that the conditions imposed on purchasing dealers to avail benefits are not discriminatory under Article 14 but are legitimate regulatory requirements. Similarly, the Madras HC upheld Rule 36(4) as constitutionally valid. Given these authoritative precedents, the court found no grounds to interfere and dismissed the petition, affirming the validity of the contested statutory provisions. en-us Wed, 13 Aug 2025 07:27:34 +0530 Wed, 13 Aug 2025 07:27:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91558 The HC dismissed the petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 36(4) of the GST Act and Rules, 2017. The court relied on prior Division Bench decisions of the Kerala HC and Madras HC, which upheld these provisions. The Kerala HC held that the conditions imposed on purchasing dealers to avail benefits are not discriminatory under Article 14 but are legitimate regulatory requirements. Similarly, the Madras HC upheld Rule 36(4) as constitutionally valid. Given these authoritative precedents, the court found no grounds to interfere and dismissed the petition, affirming the validity of the contested statutory provisions. Highlights GST Wed, 13 Aug 2025 07:27:34 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91558