Myrayash Hotels PVT. LTD., Thr. Its Director/Aut. Rep., Dhaval Barot. vs. The Union Of INDIA, Thr. The Secretary, Minstry Of Law And Justice, New Dlehi And 4 Ors.
Facts
The petitioner, Myrayash Hotels Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Goa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and also seeking to quash an order dated March 22, 2019, issued by the Appellate Authority for Advance Rulings, Goa. The petitioner argued that the said enactments should only apply prospectively and should not have been applied to a transaction entered into prior to their commencement. The revenue authorities were the respondents. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the High Court regarding the constitutional validity and another judgment concerning locus standi. Respondent No. 5, which had sought the advance ruling, had previously filed a writ petition challenging the same orders but withdrew it with liberty to file proceedings under Section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017, which is currently pending.
Held
The Court dismissed the petition concerning the challenge to the constitutional validity of the GST provisions (prayer clause a). This was based on the petitioner's fair concession that the issue had been answered against them in the High Court's judgment in Retailers Association of India (RAI) vs. Union of India & Ors., and that the principle from that case applied to GST. Regarding the challenge to the Appellate Authority's order (prayer clause b), the Court did not entertain the petition. The reasoning was that the transaction in question was subject to proceedings under Section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017, initiated by Respondent No. 5, which were pending adjudication. The Court held that if Respondent No. 5 secured a favorable order, the petitioner's petition might become unnecessary. If Respondent No. 5 failed, the petitioner was granted liberty to institute a fresh petition. The Court clarified that the issue of locus standi and any other arising issues would remain open for adjudication if a fresh petition were filed. No specific finding was given on the prospective application of GST laws to the petitioner's transaction.
Key Issues
1. Whether para 2 of Schedule II to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Goa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Sections 7 and 9 thereof, are ultra vires the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the constitutional validity of these provisions, as raised in the petition, has already been answered against them in the case of Retailers Association of India (RAI) vs. Union of India & Ors., and that the principle laid down in that judgment, though concerning Service Tax, would also apply to GST. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point, relying on the RAI judgment. 2. Whether the Appellate Authority for Advance Rulings was justified in applying the CGST and SGST enactments to the petitioner's transaction entered into prior to these enactments coming into force? The petitioner contended that both enactments are prospective and therefore could not be applied retrospectively. They relied on Commercial Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Income-Tax Officer & Ors. to assert locus standi. The respondents' arguments were not explicitly detailed, but the Court's decision indicates consideration of the pending proceedings under Section 102 of the CGST Act.
Sections Cited
Section 7, Section 9, Section 102
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
Heard Mr. Patkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pangam, the learned Advocate General for the respondent nos.3 and 4, Ms. Asha Desai, the learned Counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Shivan Desai, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.5. 2. In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following substantive reliefs : “(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the pa
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.