V.K. Moidutty @ Bava vs. The Secretary, Taxes

Facts

The petitioner, V.K. Moidutty, Managing Partner of M/s. Meera Timbers and Hardwares, filed a writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order and Ext.P2 demand notice. The petitioner sought to declare certain clauses of Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, as inconsistent with Section 19 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016, and therefore ultra vires. The petitioner also argued that powers under the erstwhile Entry 54 of the Constitution do not exist post-September 15, 2017, rendering the Kerala Value Added Tax Act unenforceable after that date. The core of the challenge revolved around the constitutional validity of the transitional provisions of the GST Act and their conflict with the constitutional amendment.

Held

The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the case. The judgment notes that a 'not press memo' was filed by the petitioner on July 10, 2018. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as not pressed. The Court did not make any findings on the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, or its alleged inconsistency with Section 19 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016. The issues concerning the enforceability of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act post-September 15, 2017, and the supremacy of constitutional provisions over statutes were also not decided. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the petition due to the petitioner's withdrawal.

Key Issues

1. Whether clauses (d) and (e) of Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, are inconsistent and contradictory to Section 19 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016, and thus ultra vires the Constitution of India? 2. Do the powers under the erstwhile Entry 54 of the Constitution cease to exist post-September 15, 2017, making the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act unenforceable if the old Entry 54 has not been saved? 3. Do the provisions of the Constitution prevail over a statute when there is an inconsistency, rendering Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, bad in law to the extent of conflict with the Constitution? 4. Is Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which invokes Article 246A of the Constitution, subservient to Section 19 of the Constitution Amendment Act, making any contradictory provisions in Section 174 unconstitutional? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that Section 174 of the KGST Act, 2017, is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Section 19 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016. They argued that the constitutional amendment has supremacy, and any statutory provision contradicting it is void. They also argued that the enforcement of the KVAT Act after September 15, 2017, is invalid without the saving of the old Entry 54. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records that a 'not press memo' was filed by the petitioner, indicating no arguments were presented by the revenue.