News Update

GST - The Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, would be disinclined to set aside, much less to stay SCN, more particularly when impugned SCN are adjudication bound: HCGST - Opportunity to file TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 Forms, has been opened to all concerned parties for a period of two months from 01.09.2022 to 31.10.2022: HCStart-Up Certification - Time to brood over!PM shares 3Ts mantra at NITI Aayog Meet - Trade, Tourism & TechnologyFake Invoicing under GST - A clarity searchTata Motors buying Ford India’s factory for Rs 725 CrI-T - Recovery of demand from company directors cannot be resorted to where no satisfaction is recorded about tax not being recoverable from company: HCUS Senate passes Biden’s Inflation Reduction Bill - USD 369 bn for climate actionI-T - Refund payable to an assessee cannot be withheld solely because notice u/s 143(2) has been passed & where no valid reason is given: HCTurkish banks embrace Russian payment systemI-T - Transfer of assessment is invalid where assessee is not given personal hearing before transfer : HCCOVID - 2.15 lakh cases with 161 deaths in Japan + 1.06 lakh cases with 27 deaths in S KoreaI-T - Disallowance of payment on grounds of unexplained gift is upheld where intention to gift money is not clearly established due to entire transaction not being through banking channels : HCNew Colombian President calls for new global strategy to deal with drugs problemI-T - Words 'a one residential' mentioned in Section 54 refers to only one house which can be purchased or constructed and can not be interpreted as 'more than one house' : ITATNigeria to recover lost Benin Bronzes to be returned by London’s Horniman MuseumI-T - Assessee is not required to deduct TDS at time of payment of EDC to HUDA : ITATChina’s military drill simulates assault on Taiwan’s main islandI-T - Amended provisions of Section 54F do not have retrospective effect: ITATCOVID - Positivity rate soars close to 15%; Delhi reports over 2400 fresh cases on SundayST - Matter has been adjourned more than three times, but none appeared on behalf of appellants, thus appeal dismissed for non-prosecution: CESTATIndia to have over 40 Cr air travellers by 2027: ScindiaCX - When sale of goods is on FOR basis, central excise duty cannot be charged on cost of freight from their premises to premises of buyer: CESTATMega blaze at Cuban oil installation - 1 dead; 121 injured & 17 missingCus - Since amount was lying in nature of pre-deposit with department from date of encashment of Bank Guarantee, appellant is entitled to interest from said date under Section 129EE @ 12% p.a.: CESTATLightning strikes - 9 die; 2 hospitalised in MPST - Mere fact that differential amount of service tax was paid by service provider on being pointed out doesn't establish that tax was short paid or was not paid by reason of fraud, suppression or misstatement with an intent to evade payment of service tax: CESTATP Chidambaram alleges India’s institutions are captured & democracy running out of puffCX - The manufacturer/dealers issued only invoices and no goods were dispatched by them with invoices, assessee failed to comply with provisions of Credit Rules, therefore, not entitled to take CENVAT credit on strength of invoices which were not genuine: CESTATIndia, US to conduct high-altitude joint training in Auli near China borderGovt appoints N Kalaiselvi, first woman, to head CSIRUS commits to defend Philippines in case of attack in South China SeaExport of processed food up by 31% to USD 7408 mn in 3 monthsIncome Tax raids mutual fund house in Mumbai
Binding nature of GST Council recommendations

AUGUST 03, 2022

By R K Singh

IN reply to un - starred question number 203, the Central government informed Rajya Sabha that the recent judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Mohit Minerals - 2022-TIOL-49-SC-GST-LB does not alter the Constitutional mechanism of GST Council. The government added that (i) the recommendations of the Council pertaining to GST laws are implemented through normal legislative process and to that extent the recommendations have only persuasive value (ii)however, the recommendations of the Council with respect to subordinate legislations e.g. those pertaining to rules, notifications and rates are binding on the states and Centre, and (iii) the Supreme Court judgment only augments this process.

2. The purpose of this article is to show that it is only in de jure sense that the recommendations of the Council pertaining to subordinate legislation are binding on Centre and the state governments. In the de facto sense, it is not so. It was so hinted in passing by this author in an earlier article but in the wake of the Central government's reply in the Rajya Sabha, it has become necessary to elaborate.

3. It is pertinent to point out that CGST Act, in its section 166 has a provision, similar to the provision which exists in all the taxation statutes. The said self-explanatory section is reproduced below for convenience:

"S. 166- Laying of rules, regulations and notifications

Every rule made by the Government, every regulation made by the Board and every notification issued by the Government under this Act, shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made or issued, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or regulation or in the notification, as the case may be, or both Houses agree that the rule or regulation or the notification should not be made, the rule or regulation or notification, as the case may be, shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule or regulation or notification, as the case may be.

(Similar provision exists in section 166 of the GST law of States)

It is thus evident that although (as has been stated by the Central government in Rajya Sabha and held by Supreme Court) Central Government and the state governments are bound to implement the recommendations of the Council with regard to Subordinate legislation ( viz. rules, regulations and notifications) and, therefore, will have to make/amend the rules and issue notifications prescribing rates or granting exemptions in accordance with the Council's recommendations, the rules so made/ amended or notifications so issued will have to be laid on the table of the Parliament / state legislatures. If the state legislatures/ parliament agree(s)to make any modifications in the rule(s)so made/ amended or the notifications so issued, as the case may be, or agree(s) that the rule so made/ amended or the notifications so issued should not be made/ amended/ issued, the rule so made/ amended or the notification so issued, as the case may be, shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be.

4. The governments in power in the Centre or in the states would obviously have majority support in the Parliament/ respective state legislatures and, therefore, if any of the states had to unwillingly make / amend any rules or issue any notifications as per the recommendations of the Council, it will easily be able to scuttle the same through the respective state legislatures. [Save if the government at the Centre changes soon after the recommendations are made by the Council but before the fulfilment of the statutory requirement of the said s. 166, occasion for such scuttling by Central government will not arise because to begin with no recommendation can be made by GST Council unless the Central government is on board.]

5. Thus, the Central government / Supreme Court is right, but only in de jure sense, to hold that the recommendations of the Council with regard to subordinate legislation are binding on the Central/ state governments but de facto Central government or any state governments will be able to scuttle those recommendations through Parliament or the respective state assemblies which, as has been acknowledged and held by Supreme Court in the said judgement, are not bound by the recommendations of the Council.

6. It seems that Supreme Court was not expressly sensitized to the requirement of subordinate legislation having to pass the muster of s. 166. As different parties are / may be in power in different states and may not always be ad idem to the Council's recommendations with regard to subordinate legislation, the day is not unforeseeable when the dissenting states will resort to the state assembly route enshrined in s. 166 to scuttle such recommendations, thereby throwing the fundamental strength of GST (one nation - one tax) into disarray.

[The author is former Member CESTAT and Sr. Partner, TLC Legal Advocates. The views expressed are strictly personal.]
(DISCLAIMER : The views expressed are strictly of the author and doesn't necessarily subscribe to the same. Pvt. Ltd. is not responsible or liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any interpretation, error, omission in the articles being hosted on the site)