On 17th September 2021, the Supreme Court recently clubbed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue Bar Association that challenged the order of the Madra High Court along with the writ petition filed by lawyer and activist Amit Sahni seeking the constitutional validity of the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
JUDGEMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT
On 20th September 2021, the Bench of Madras High Court consisting of Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Subramonium Prasad struck down the various provisions of the Central Goods And Services Tax Act. The provisions were as following, Section 110(1)(b)(iii) of the CGST Act, which was responsible for appointing the members of the appellate tribunal stating that the Member of Legal Services who has held a post not less than Additional Secretary for three years, can be appointed as a Judicial Member in Goods and Service Tax Act.
The Court also prohibited Section 109(3) and 109(9) of the CGST Act which stated that the tribunal should consist of one Judicial Member, one Technical Member (Centre) and one Technical Member (State).
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court while listening to the Senior Advocate representing the Revenue Bar Association asked him to wait while the “battle is concluded” in reference to the cases which are pending before the special bench which consists of N.V.Ramana related to the tribunal, which represents his willingness to tag the appeal with the other special leave petitions.
CONTENTIONS OF THE SENIOR ADVOCATE REPRESENTING THE APPELLAN
The Senior Advocate Arvind Datar tried to explain the difference between his petition and the other Special Leave Petition with which the Justice wished to tag the matter along with, however, the Senior Advocate contended that their petition is particularly challenging the Madras High Court’s order as per which the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act were held unconstitutional and the inclusion of the lawyers as the members of the tribunal was held to be unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the Senior Advocate held that these points were not answered by the Madras High Court and therefore the appellants have appealed before the Apex Court.
He further questioned the judgement of the High Court by stating that the advocates have been members of various tribunals such as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), then what was the logical nexus due to which the advocates were not allowed to be a member of the Goods And Service Tax Appellant Tribunal.
Justice Abdul Nazeer commented on the arguments of the Senior Counsel saying that an advocate can be directly elevated to the Supreme Court but cannot be a member of the Goods and Sales Act Tribunals.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Additional Solicitor General of India, representing the state held that the matter should be tagged along with Amit Sahni case which also talks about the constitution of the Goods and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The advocate representing the State of Tamil Nadu held that the petition does not highlight any other issue but the fact that the lawyers are not given the opportunity to be members of the Tribunal, and therefore all the other issues should be rejected honouring the High Court of Madras’s Judgement.
.webp)
