Decision-These statements refer to a legal case involving the challenge to the constitutionality of sections 13(8)(b) and 8(2) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act). In a previous judgment, Hon'ble Shri Justice Ujjal Bhuyan declared section 13(8)(b) as ultra vires and unconstitutional. A similar view was taken in another writ petition (L) No. 639 of 2020.
However, in dissenting opinions, one of the judges, Abhay Ahuja, held both section 13(8)(b) and section 8(2) as constitutionally valid. Another similar view was expressed by Abhay Ahuja in Writ Petition (L) No. 639 of 2020.
Due to the difference of opinion on the constitutionality of section 13(8)(b) between the judges, the matter was referred to the Hon'ble The Chief Justice. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Shri Justice G.S. Kulkarni rendered his opinion, stating that sections 13(8)(b) and 8(2) are legal and constitutional, but their application should be limited to the IGST Act.
As a result, the case was placed before the present Division Bench for the final judgment. Considering the opinions of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Abhay Ahuja, the Division Bench held that sections 13(8)(b) and 8(2) of the IGST Act are legal, valid, and constitutional. Therefore, the petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Dharmendra M. Jani, A.T.E. Enterprises Private Limited (Formerly Known AS A.T.E. Marketing Pvt. Ltd.) Versus The Union of india
Dated- 06/06/2023
