Case Title | Dharmendra M. Jani vs The Union of India |
Court | Bombay High Court |
Honorable Judges | Juctice ABHAY AHUJA Juctice SUNIL B. SHUKRE |
Citation | 2023 (07) GSTPanacea 241 HC Bombay WRIT PETITION NO.2031 OF 2018 |
Judgment Date | 06-july-2023 |
The main contention in both petitions revolves around the validity of section 13(8)(b) and section 8(2) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as “IGST” for brevity).
On June 9, 2021, Hon’ble Shri Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, in paragraphs 65 and 66 of his Judgment and Order in Writ Petition No.2031 of 2018, made a significant ruling. He declared section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act as ultra vires the Act itself, in addition to being unconstitutional. In essence, this means that the section is invalid as it goes beyond the powers granted by the Act and also violates constitutional provisions. The judgment stated:
“Thus having regard to the discussions made above and upon thorough consideration, we have no hesitation in holding that section 13(8)(b) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is ultra vires the said Act besides being unconstitutional. Writ petition is accordingly allowed to the above extent. However, there shall be no order as to cost.”
This ruling signifies that the section in question cannot be enforced and is deemed null and void. Importantly, a similar viewpoint declaring section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act as ultra vires and unconstitutional had been previously expressed in Writ Petition (L) No.639 of 2020.
These judgments highlight a significant legal interpretation issue regarding the scope and legality of certain provisions within the IGST Act. The rulings have ramifications for the taxation framework and potentially impact how certain transactions and operations are conducted within the purview of the IGST Act.