Today(on 2nd September),The Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition challenging the constitutionality of the 101st Amendment Act, 2016, which introduced GST. The bench, led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, upheld the Patna High Court’s earlier decision rejecting the writ petition.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 2nd September), the Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition that challenged the constitutionality of certain amendments made to the Indian Constitution through the 101st Amendment Act, 2016, which introduced the Goods and Services Tax (GST). The bench, led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, upheld the decision of the Patna High Court, which had previously dismissed a writ petition against the said amendments.
“What kind of public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed? How are you concerned? How is the public concerned? Sorry, dismissed,”
-remarked the bench, which also included Justice Manoj Misra, as they refused to entertain the plea.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, an advocate by profession, had approached the Patna High Court earlier this year, challenging the constitutionality of Sections 2, 9, 12, and 18 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016. The petitioner argued that these sections, which are integral to the implementation of GST, were in violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. However, the high court dismissed the plea, stating that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to challenge the amendments since he was not involved in any commercial activities and had not suffered any legal injury.
The high court’s decision, passed in April, emphasized that the petitioner, being an advocate, did not have the legal standing to file the petition as he was not directly affected by the amendments. This principle of locus standi plays a crucial role in determining who has the right to bring a case before the court.
ALSO READ: A Person Cannot be Arrested in GST Cases, Unless Credible Evidence is found: SC
Appeal to the Supreme Court
In response to the high court’s dismissal, the petitioner filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, arguing that the high court had failed to appreciate the broader implications of the case.
The petition highlighted that-
“The High Court failed to recognize the established principle that the rule of locus standi can be relaxed for issues of fundamental importance that involve broader public interest.”
The petitioner contended that amendments to the Constitution that alter its basic features can be challenged by any citizen, regardless of their direct involvement or personal injury.
“If an amendment to any constitutional provision undermines its basic features, every citizen, regardless of their position, has the right to challenge the validity of that provision before the Constitutional Courts.”
– the petition added.
Impact of the 101st Amendment
The 101st Amendment Act, 2016, brought about significant changes in India’s indirect taxation system by introducing the Goods and Services Tax (GST). The amendment restructured the power of levy and collection of indirect taxes, affecting businesses and consumers alike.
The petition argued that-
“The Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 significantly alters the framework and authority for imposing indirect taxes in the country, impacting the general public, as the tax burden is ultimately borne by every citizen, either directly or indirectly.”
One of the key contentions in the petition was the role of the GST Council, an executive body empowered by the 101st Amendment. The petitioner argued that the GST Council has the authority to recommend new levies on items such as petroleum crude, high-speed diesel, and motor spirit, which effectively allows it to amend the VII Schedule of the Indian Constitution from the date of its recommendation.
Concerns Over Delegation of Legislative Powers
The petition further raised concerns over the delegation of legislative powers, stating that-
“There is an implied limitation on the delegation of legislative powers by Parliament, as it is a creation of the Constitution and cannot delegate its essential function of constitutional amendments under Article 368 to another body that is neither part of Parliament nor accountable to it.”
The petitioner argued that the legislative functions of Parliament, particularly in providing compensation to states, had been subjected to the recommendations of the GST Council without any constitutional safeguard, thereby undermining the essential functions of the Parliament. This, the petitioner contended, posed a threat to the basic structure of the Constitution.
Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court upheld the Patna High Court’s decision, dismissing the petition and affirming the constitutionality of the GST-related amendments. The bench’s dismissal of the plea suggests that the judiciary remains cautious about entertaining public interest litigations that do not demonstrate direct harm or legal injury.
