2019 (2) TMI 388

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ule II to the GST Act, 2017 (enclosed as Annexure-A) as unconstitutional being violative of Article 366(29A) of the Constitution. (B) Writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to declare entry 5(b) of Schedule II to the CGST Act, 2017 (enclosed as Annexure-A) being unconstitutional lacking legislative competence and violative of Article 246A and 265 of the Constitution. (C) Writ or direction in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ or direction to quash the provisions of entry 3(i) read with para 2 of the Notification No.11/2017-CT(R) dt. 28.06.2017 to the extent it covers entry 3(i) (enclosed as Annexure-B) as unconstitutional being violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 246A, 265, 366(12A) and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2004)6 SCC 254 = 2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Limited Vs. Union of India and another. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as other High Courts, submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the Notification and Circular issued by the respondent-authorities pursuant to Entry 5(b) of Schedule II to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('Act' for short) which envisages levy of tax on construction activities and deeming the value of the land at one-third of the total amount charged. Learned Counsel argued that irrespective of any action initiated or not by the respondent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed in Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, indisputably even if a small fraction thereof accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter though the doctrine of forum conveniens may also have to be considered. The jurisdiction of the High Court based on the cause of action doctrine was the subject matter adjudicated upon.   9. In the case of Namit Sharma Vs. Union of India reported in (2013) 1 SCC 745 = 2012 (9) TMI 809 - SUPREME COURT the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that no prejudice needs to be proved in cases where breach of fundamental rights is claimed. Violation of a fundamental right itself renders the impugned action void. 10. In Dr.Md.Rezaul Karim Vs. State ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, held that a Notification under Section 4(1) initiates the proceedings for acquisition of land and uses the expression 'shall', the mandate of the legislature becomes clear and therefore, the infirmities therein cannot be wholly overlooked on the specious plea that the courts do not interdict at the stage of a mere proposal. It is needless to observe that in the land acquisition proceedings, at the time of issuance of preliminary Notification, lands proposed to be acquired are identified along with the respective land owners and a cause of action has emerged. 13. In Kshama Sahakari Avas Samiti Limited Vs. State of U.P. 2006 SCC Online All 1443 = 2006 (8) TMI 663 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, the High Court of ....