Surgiplast vs. The State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 23 January 2019

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY,THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 3RD MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 1991 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: SURGIPLAST PRASANTHI, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHPURAM-695 008, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR S. KUMAR. BY ADVS. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.M.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO.VII, SGST DEPT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AT NEYYATTINKARA,PIN-695 012 2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM-695 001 3 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.46,NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001 GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).1991/19 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner, a business concern, has sought the following reliefs: “(i) 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; (ii) declare that the power vested in the State Legislature under Entry 54 List II of the Seventy 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do not exist from 16-09-17 so long as the erstwhile entry 54 had not been saved to validate actions taken under the repealed Act; (iii) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or orders or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to call for the records leading to the issue of Ext.P1, Ext.P1(a) and Ext.P1(b) orders and to strike down and quash them; (iv) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or orders directing the 1st respondent to refrain from recovering the demands created as per Ext.P1, Ext.P1(a) and Ext.P1(b) orders and (v) issue such other writ, order, or direction, which this Hon'ble court deems fit and necessary in the interest of justice.

Both counsel agree that the issues stand squarely covered against the petitioner by judgment dated 11th January 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 okb //// P.A. to Judge

W.P(C).1991/19 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.06.2018 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 UNDER SECTION 67 OF THE ACT EXHIBIT P1 (a) COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.06.2018 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 UNDER SECTION 67 OF THE ACT EXHIBIT P1 (b) COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.06.2018 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 UNDER SECTION 67 OF THE ACT EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 13.04.2018 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP.(C) NO.13552 OF 2018