Arun Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The petitioner, appearing in person, sought permission to withdraw the present writ petition. He requested liberty to agitate the claims raised in this petition by filing a fresh writ petition, rather than pursuing it as a Public Interest Litigation. The Court, considering the petitioner's request, disposed of the petition with the liberty granted to file a fresh writ petition. No decision was made on the merits of the constitutional challenge to Article 279-A(5) and the explanation to Article 246-A(2) of the Constitution of India.

Facts

The petitioner, Arun Kumar, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Article 279-A(5) and the explanation to Article 246-A(2) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that these provisions were unconstitutional and ultra vires because they created a separate, indefinite provision for levying Goods and Services Tax (GST) on petroleum products without a fixed implementation date. This, he contended, allowed for the continued levy of the repealed Value Added Tax (VAT) on petroleum products indefinitely, in conflict with the simultaneous existence of GST. The petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether Article 279-A(5) and the explanation to Article 246-A(2) of the Constitution of India are unconstitutional and ultra vires, as they provide for a separate and indefinite levy of GST on petroleum products without a fixed implementation date, allowing for the continued levy of VAT in conflict with GST? The petitioner, appearing in person, argued that the aforementioned constitutional provisions are unconstitutional and ultra vires. His contention was that these provisions create an unwarranted separate mechanism for levying GST on petroleum products without specifying a fixed date for its implementation. This, he argued, permits the respondents to continue levying the repealed Value Added Tax (VAT) on petroleum products for an indefinite period, creating a conflict with GST. The petitioner sought to challenge this situation through a writ of mandamus. The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.