Supreme Court of India declined to transfer GST challenges from High Courts, warning consolidation risks forum shopping and weakens balance. Turf clubs sought unified rulings on horse racing taxation, citing issues, but the Court stressed constitutional autonomy tax amendments.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has chosen not to entertain applications that sought to transfer various GST-related challenges currently pending in multiple High Courts to a single forum. The Court firmly warned that such consolidation could lead to forum shopping and may undermine the constitutional status of High Courts, thus reinforcing the balance of federal judicial authority during a time of significant scrutiny over central tax laws.
These transfer petitions were submitted by turf clubs attempting to consolidate disputes regarding the GST on horse racing and actionable claims, arguing that amendments to the GST law had led to consistent legal issues across at least four High Courts.
Senior Advocate Arvind P. Datar, representing the petitioners, pointed out that differing High Court decisions on a central statute could generate legal uncertainty. He urged the Supreme Court to consolidate all cases into one High Court to ensure uniformity, clarifying that the request was not aimed at any specific court and referencing previous occasions where similar transfers had been authorized.
However, the Bench remained unconvinced and expressed strong concerns that such transfers might foster improper practices.
Highlighting the risks of forum shopping, Chief Justice Surya Kant noted,
“this can lead to a lot of malpractices,”
He dismissed the argument that the inconvenience to lawyers warranted consolidation, emphasizing the availability of virtual hearings. The Court also clarified that varying opinions among High Courts regarding a central law are not inherently problematic.
The Chief Justice stated,
“the ultimate arbiter will be the Supreme Court.”
In delivering a resolute institutional message, the Bench warned that selective transfers could imply that certain High Courts are of higher status, asserting that “all High Courts are equal,” and cautioning against the perception of any being a “mini Supreme Court.”
Given the Court’s clear disinterest in the request, the petitioners opted to withdraw their transfer pleas.