2023-VIL-93-SC

SGST Supreme Court Cases

GST - Interpretation of Section 19 of The Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 - Validity of retrospective amendment to State VAT Act to extend the period of limitation to issue notice of reassessment and reopen cases as well as extend the period of limitation for deciding pending revisions and proceedings – HELD - Section 19 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 and Article 246A enacted in exercise of constituent power, formed part of the transitional arrangement for the limited duration of its operation, and had the effect of continuing the operation of inconsistent laws for the period(s) specified by it and, by virtue of its operation, allowed state legislatures and Parliament to amend or repeal such existing laws - Since other provisions of the said Amendment Act, had the effect of deleting heads of legislation, from List I and List II (of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India), both Section 19 and Article 246A reflected the constituent expression that existing laws would continue and could be amended. The source or fields of legislation, to the extent they were deleted from the two lists, for a brief while, were contained in Section 19. As a result, there were no limitations on the power to amend - The made to the Telangana VAT Act, and the Gujarat VAT Act, after 01.07.2017 were correctly held void, for want of legislative competence, by the two High Courts (Telangana and Gujarat High Court). The judgment of the Bombay High Court is held to be in error; it is set aside; the amendment to the Maharashtra Act, to the extent it required pre-deposit is held void - The appeals filed by the States of Telangana and Gujarat are dismissed; the appeals of the assessees against the judgment of the Bombay High Court succeed and are allowed - Interpretation of Section 19 of The Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 - An ordinary law such as an Act of Parliament, is a product of a legislative exercise. The source of that power is traced to the Constitution in some specific provisions or through fields of legislation enumerated in one or the other lists. Constitutional law on the other hand is that it arises out of the Constitution and creates different organs of the State, defines their power and imposes limitations on the functioning of the Executive and legislative wings through the fundamental rights and other limitations. An ordinary law can be made or changed by the same body, the legislating body in exercising legislative power. Since constitutional amendments relates to the fundamental law of the land which is a source of authority for other laws, it can be achieved only through fulfilling the special procedure - the mere circumstance that Section 19 does not get added to the Constitution, would not make any difference - Although those provisions continued to be part of the Constitution, they have no meaning and were merely historical - Section 19 is not There cannot be any gain in saying that Section 19 is not a mere legislative device. It was adopted as part of the 101st Constitutional Amendment Act. Undoubtedly, it was not inserted into the Constitution. Whatever reasons impelled Parliament to keep it outside the body of the Constitution, the fact remains that it was introduced as part of the same Amendment Act which entirely revamped the Constitution

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page