Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Two similar petitions has been filed challenging the sections 109 and 110 of chapter 18 of the central goods and services Tax (GST) Act which deals with the appellate tribunals for tax matters are to be constituted by one judicial member, technical member(centre) and one technical member(state). They contended that number of technical members cannot exceed the judicial members in the tribunal because it may lead to violation of doctrine of separation of powers and infringement of independence and impartiality of the judiciary. It even challenged the exclusion of lawyers from being appointed as members of GSTAT under the Articles 124, 217 and 233 of the constitution saying that these provisions allow the direct recruitment of advocates having sufficient experience to the District Courts and the Higher Judiciary. The petitioners relayed upon the cases Union of India v R Gandhi, MBA v UOI, Sampath Kumar v UOI and UOI v Delhi High Court.
Submissions on behalf of Union Finance Ministry, GST council, a well as state of Tamil Nadudefended the petitioners by submitting that a Lawyer`s right to practice under Art 19(1)(g) of the constitution does not include the right to be appointed as the Judge.
They also contended that the case is premature because selection committee would be tasked to select members who have such requisite committee is yet to be appointed and also argued that tribunal members are legally qualified and judicially trained. They submitted that GSTAT is traceable to Art 246A and not Art 323B so they cannot relay upon the MBA case in the instant case.
The bench of Justice S Manikumar and Subramonium Prasad reserved its judgment. Initially issued notice to central Government in August last year.
86540
103860
630
114
59824