Plea in SC challenges amendments to GST

New Delhi: A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of certain amendments introduced in the Constitution for implementing Goods and Services Tax (GST), which will be heard by a bench headed by CJI D Y Chandrachud on Monday.

Earlier in April this year, the Patna High Court had dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Sections 2, 9, 12 and 18 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016.

In its impugned decision, the High Court ruled that the petitioner being an advocate did not have the locus standi to challenge the amendments as he was not involved in any commercial activities and no legal injury had been caused to him.

The special leave petition filed before the apex court said that the High Court has failed to appreciate the settled principle of law that if the issue raised is of fundamental importance involving the larger public interest, the rule of locus standi can be relaxed."If any amend ment to any provision in the constitution abrogates its basic feature, every citizen irrespective of his position has the right to challenge the vires of the said provision before the Constitutional Courts," it added.

Further, it said that the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 brings about a sea change in the manner and power of levy of indirect taxation in the country, the incidence of which is indeed passed on to common people and every citizen at large are affected by such provision whether directly or indirectly.

The plea, filed through advocate Chandan Kumar, said that the GST Council, an executive body, is empowered to create a new levy in respect of petroleum crude, high-speed diesel, motor spirit, etc., and de facto amend the VII Schedule of the Indian Constitution from the date of its recommendation.

"There is implied limitation to the delegation of legislative powers of the Parliament as the Parliament under our Constitution is a creature of Constitution and cannot delegate its essential functions of amendment as provided under Article 368 to another body which is neither a part of the Parliament nor in any way responsible to it," it contended.