Hindusthan Steels vs. The State Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY ,THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 12TH MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 146 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: HINDUSTHAN STEELS 8/791, N H BYE PASS, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD- 678 007, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. RAFIKH AHAMED. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER IST CIRCLE, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KERALA, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, WAYANAD CAMP AT PALAKKAD-678 001. 3 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.46, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. OTHER PRESENT: GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES.., CGC SRI. P. VIJAYAKUMAR.

-2- W.P.(C). No. 146 of 2019 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The petitioner, a business concern, seeks the following reliefs; “i) Issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, calling for the records leading to the issue of Ext.P5 order and after scrutinizing the same, to strike down and quash the same. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or orders directing the respondent or anybody acting on his behalf not to take coercive steps for realizing the tax demanded as per Ext.P5 order and demand notice; iii) declare the provisions of clauses (d) and (e) of sub- section (2) of section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Act 20 of 2017) as unconstitutional and hence unsustainable in law. iv) to declare that the power vested in the State Legislature under Entry 54 List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, as it stood prior to the insertion of the revised entry by the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, do not exist from 08.09.2017 so long as the erstwhile entry 54 had not been saved to validate actions taken under the repealed Act.” Both the counsel agree that the issues stand squarely covered against the petitioner by a judgment dated 11th January

-3- W.P.(C). No. 146 of 2019 2019 in W.P.(C) No.11335 of 2018 and connected cases. I, therefore, dismiss the writ petition applying the ratio of the judgment referred to above. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ANNUAL RETURN FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 28.5.2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 8.3.2018 DELIVERED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ON 19.4.2018. EXHIBIT P3 COPTY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 19.5.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 17.8.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE MODIFIED ORDER DATED 28.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12.