www.taxguru.in1
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREFOR
RAJASTHANATJODHPUR
D.B.CIVILWRITPETITION(PIL)NO. /2018
Petitioner:-
AbhishekChopraS/oShriRajeshChopraAge:33years,ResidentofPaliMarwar
VERSUS
Respondents:-
1. UnionofIndia,ThroughSecretaryMinistryofFinance
DepartmentofRevenueNo.137, NorthBlock,NewDelhi-110001.2. UnionofIndia, ThroughSecretaryMinistryofLaw&Justice 4thFloor,AWing,RajendraPrasadRoad, ShastriBhavan,NewDelhi–110001.3. TheGoodsandServiceTaxCouncil(GSTCouncil) ThroughSecretaryOfficeoftheGSTCouncilSecretariat, 5thFloor,TowerII, JeevanBhartiBuilding,JanpathRoad, ConnaughtPlace,NewDelhi-110001.4. StateofRajasthan ThroughChiefSecretary,FinanceDepartment,
Jaipur
******
PublicInterestLitigationPetitionunderArticle226
oftheConstitutionofIndiareadwithRule385-Aofthe
RajasthanHighcourtRules,1952
*****
www.taxguru.in2
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
INTHEMATTEROFCHAPTERSXVIIOFTHECGSTACT,2017
&RGSTACT,2017READWITHCHAPTERXIIOFTHECGST
RULES,2017
To,Hon’ble The Chief Justice, and his otherCompanion Judges of the Rajasthan High CourtatJodhpur.
MAYITPLEASEYOURLORDSHIPS,
Petitioner, above named most respectfully submits
asunder:-
(1) INTRODUCTION
1. ThepresentPetitionunderArticles226and/or227of the
Constitution of India is being filed by way of Public Interest
LitigationandthePetitionerhasnopersonalinterest.ThePetition
is being filed in the interest of the public at large. The present
Petitionisfiledtoseekingdeclarationthat:
(a) ChapterXVIIoftheCentralGoodsandServicesTax(CGST)
Act,2017,moreparticularlySection96whichrelateto‘Authority
for Advance Ruling (AAR) and Section 99 which relate to
‘AppellateAuthorityforAdvanceRuling(AAAR)’;
(b) Chapter XVII of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax
(RGST) Act, 2017more particularly Sections 96 which relate to
www.taxguru.in3
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
‘AuthorityforAdvanceRuling(AAR)’andSection99whichrelate
to‘AppellateAuthorityforAdvanceRuling(AAAR)’;
(c) Chapter XII of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST)
Rules, 2017 more particularly Rule 103 which relate to the
“Qualification and appointment ofmembers of theAuthority for
AdvanceRuling”;
(d) Notification No.9/2017 – Central Tax dated 28.06.2017 in
termsofs.96ands.99oftheCentralGoodsandServicesTaxAct,
2017;
(e) Notification No. 9/2017 – State Tax dated 29.06.2017 in
termsofs.96and99oftheRajasthanGoodsandServicesTaxAct,
2017;
areultravirestheArticles14and50oftheConstitutionofIndia
as the same are void, defective and unconstitutional, being
violativeofdoctrinesof separationofpowers and independence
of judiciary which are parts of the basic structure of the
Constitutionand further contrary to theprinciples laiddownby
theHon’bleSupremeCourt inUnionof Indiav.R.Gandhi(2010)
11 SCC 1 and in Columbia Sportswear Co. v. DIT (2012) 11 SCC
224.
www.taxguru.in4
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
Copy of the Chapter XVII of Central Goods and Services Tax
(CGST)Act, 2017 is annexedhereto andmarkedasAnnexure-1,
Copy of Chapter XVII of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax
(RGST)Act, 2017 is annexedheretoandmarkedasAnnexure-2,
CopyofChapterXIIoftheCentralGoodsandServicesTax(CGST)
Rules, 2017 is annexedheretoandmarkedasAnnexure-3, Copy
of theNotificationNo.9/2017 – Central Tax dated 28.06.2017 is
annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-4, Copy of the
NotificationNo.9/2017– StateTax dated29.06.2017 is annexed
heretoandmarkedasAnnexure-5tothisPetition.
(2) PARTICULARSOFTHEPETITIONER
2. ThePetitioner isaqualifiedC.A.andhasundertakenmany
other specialized certification courses. He works as an advisor/
consultant and his core areas of expertise are banking, taxation,
corporateandcommerciallaws.Heregularlydeliverslecturesand
is invited as regular speaker at various seminars/ workshop
conductedby institutes like ICAI, ICSI, C&AG, Banksandvarious
organizations.Onaccountoftheabove,hegetsanopportunityto
interactwithvariouspeople fromdifferentbackgrounds suchas
businessmen,traders,CharteredAccountants,Lawyers,Students,
Company Secretaries etc. The Petitioner undertakes a rigorous
analysis of legal developments, policies and institutions. The
www.taxguru.in5
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
sourceof incomeof thePetitioner is fromprovidingconsultancy
services in various fields of law to its individual clients and
corporate.
(3) DECLARATIONANDUNDERTAKINGOFTHEPETITIONERS
3. That the Petitioner is filing the present petition in Public
Interestontheirownandnotattheinstanceofanyotherperson
ororganization.Thelitigationcostandthetravellingexpensesare
being borne by the Petitioner themselves. The Advocate for the
Petitionerhasvolunteeredprobono legalservices.There areno
contemptproceedingsagainstthePetitioner.
(4) FACTS
4. Thatthefactsofthecaseinbriefareasfollows:-
4.1 The Petitioner has preferred this petition against
tribunalisation of justice, bureaucratisation of justice and its
impactonjudicialindependenceandseparationofpowersbefore
thisHon’bleCourt.Therefore,ThePetitionersubmitsthathehas
locusstanditomaintainthepresentwritpetition.
4.2 The 1st and 2nd respondent are the Union of India,
represented through the Ministry of Finance, Department of
RevenueandMinistryofLawandJusticeandareresponsiblefor
www.taxguru.in6
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
enactment of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, 3rd
Respondent isTheGoodsandServiceTaxCouncil (GSTCouncil),
which is a constitutional body under Article 279A of the
Constitution,Article279A(4)(c)oftheConstitutionofIndiaand
isresponsibleformakingrecommendationstotheUnionandthe
States on themodel Goods and Services Tax Laws, principles of
levy, apportionment of Goods and Services Tax etc. 4th
Respondent is the State of Rajasthan through its Finance
Department is responsible forenactmentof theRajasthanGoods
andServicesTaxAct,2017.
4.3 Genesis: The idea of moving towards the GST was first
mooted by the then Union Finance Minister in his Budget for
2006-07.Initially, itwasproposedthatGSTwouldbeintroduced
from1stApril,2010.TheEmpoweredCommitteeofStateFinance
Ministers(EC)whichhadformulatedthedesignofStateVATwas
requestedtocomeupwitharoadmapandstructurefortheGST.
Joint Working Groups of officials having representatives of the
States as well as the Centre were set up to examine various
aspectsoftheGSTanddrawupreportsspecificallyonexemptions
and thresholds, taxation of services and taxation of inter-State
supplies. It is submitted that, the fiscal powers between the
Centre and the States have been clearly demarcated in the
Constitution with almost no overlap between the respective
www.taxguru.in7
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
domains.Incaseofinter-Statesales,theCentrehashadthepower
to levya tax (theCentral SalesTax)but, the tax is collectedand
retainedentirelyby theoriginatingStates.As for services, it has
been the Centre alone that is empowered to levy service tax.
IntroductionofGSTrequiredamendments in theConstitutionso
astoconcurrentlyempowertheCentreandtheStatestolevyand
collecttheGST.It isalsosubmittedthat, toaddressall theseand
other issues, the Constitution (122nd Amendment) Bill was
introduced in the 16th Lok Sabha on 19.12.2014. The Bill
provided for a levy of GST on supply of all goods or services
except forAlcohol forhumanconsumption. Itwasproposed that
thetaxshallbeleviedasDualGSTseparatelybutconcurrentlyby
the Union (central tax - CGST) and the States (including Union
Territorieswithlegislatures)(Statetax-SGST)/Unionterritories
withoutlegislatures(Unionterritorytax-UTGST).TheParliament
wouldhaveexclusivepowertolevyGST(integratedtax-IGST)on
inter-State trade or commerce (including imports) in goods or
services.Furtherthebillhadbeenratifiedbyrequirednumberof
States and received assent of the President on 8th September,
2016 and has since been enacted as Constitution (101st
Amendment)Act,2016w.e.f.16thSeptember,2016.
4.4 One of features of GST was to constitute ‘Advance Ruling
Authority’inordertoenablethetaxpayertoseekabindingclarity
www.taxguru.in8
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
on taxation matters from the department. Centre would adopt
such authority under CGST Act. Pre-GST regime under separate
laws namely Excise, Custom and Service tax had the scheme of
AdvanceRuling.Obtaininganadvance rulinghelps the applicant
in planning their activities which are liable for payment of
Customs,orCentralExciseorservicetax,well inadvance.Italso
bringscertaintyindeterminingtheduty/taxliability,astheruling
given by the Authority for Advance Ruling is binding on the
applicant aswell as Government authorities. Further, it helps in
avoiding long drawn and expensive litigation at a later date.
Seeking an advance ruling is inexpensive and the procedure is
simpleandexpeditious.
4.5 ConceptofAdvanceRulingsenvisagedunderRevisedKyoto
Convention of WCO and Under WTO Agreement on Trade
Facilitation.Standard9.9oftheRevisedKyotoConvention,which
is the International Convention on the Simplification and
HarmonizationofCustomsprocedures andwasadopted in June,
1999asablueprintformodernandefficientCustomsprocedures
inthe21stCentury,dealswithAdvanceRulings.
4.6 LegislativeJourneyofSchemeofAdvanceRulinginIndirect
Taxes:IntheBudgetspeechof1998-99,FinanceMinisterofIndia
proposed the setting up of AAR for Excise and Customs tomeet
www.taxguru.in9
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
the need for foreign investors to be assured in advance of their
likely indirect tax liability. Legislative provisions for advance
rulingswereintroducedinCustomsAct,1962andCentralExcise
Act, 1944 vide Finance Act of 1999. In 2003, the concept of
Advance Ruling was incorporated in service tax matters by
incorporatinglegislativeprovisionsintheFinanceAct,1994vide
FinanceAct,2003.
4.7 Statutory Provisions Regarding AAR in Pre-GST regime
undermajorindirecttaxes:-
Customs: The legal provisions relating to AAR are
contained inChapterV-Bof theCustomsAct, 1962 fromSection
28E to Section 28M. Further, the Customs (Advance Rulings)
Rules,2002havealsobeenissued.
Central Excise: In respect of Central Excise, the
provisions relating to AAR are contained in the Chapter III-A of
CentralExciseAct,1944fromSection23AtoSection23H.Further,
theCentralExcise (AdvanceRulings)Rules,2002havealsobeen
issued.
Service Tax: In respect of service tax, the provisions
relating toAARarecontained in theChapterV-AofFinanceAct,
1994 from Section 96A to Section 96 I. Further, the Service Tax
(AdvanceRulings)Rules,2003havealsobeenissued.
www.taxguru.in10
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
4.8 Compositionof theAuthorityofAdvanceRulingunder the
preRSTregime:-
The advance ruling in India is rendered by an Authority
constituted specifically for this purpose known as the Authority
forAdvanceRulings.ItconsistsofaChairmanandtwoMembers.
The Chairman is a retired Supreme Court Judge. One of the
MemberstobeappointedtobeamemberoftheCBDT,whomay
be referred to as theRevenueMember.TheotherMember is an
officer of the Indian Legal Service, who is qualified to be an
Additional Secretary to the Government of India and may be
referred to as the Law member. The salaries and allowances
payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of the
Membershavebeenprescribedby theGovernmentof India.The
Constitution of the Authority is such that it functions as an
independentquasi-judicialbodydeemedtobeaCivilCourtforthe
purposeofSection195oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973.
4.9 FourLawsnamelyCGSTAct,UTGSTAct, IGSTActandGST
(CompensationtoStates)ActhavebeenpassedbytheParliament
and since been notified on 12thApril, 2017. The levy of the tax
commencedonlyaftertheGSTLawswereenactedbyalltheState
Legislatures. Accordingly, the appointed date for bringing into
forcetheGSTregimewasfixedas01.07.2017.
www.taxguru.in11
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
4.10 TheentireschemeandconceptofAARhasbeenexplained
in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Columbia Sportswear Company vs. Director of Income-tax,
Bangalore)reported in (2012)11SCC224wherein thequestion
before the Hon’ble court was whether AAR is Tribunal or not?
Samewasanswered inpara7 to10,excerptsof thesameareas
infra:
“7. The meaning of the expression "tribunal" in Article 136and the expression "tribunals" in Article 227 of theConstitution has been explained by Hidayatullah, J., in HariNagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala AIR1961SC1669 inparagraph32, relevantportionofwhich isquotedhereinbelow:
"With the growth of civilisation and the problems ofmodernlife,alargenumberofadministrativetribunalshave come into existence. These tribunals have theauthority of law to pronounce upon valuable rights;theyact ina judicialmannerandevenonevidenceonoath, but they are not part of the ordinary Courts ofCivil Judicature.Theyshare theexerciseof the judicialpoweroftheState,buttheyarebrought intoexistenceto implement some administrative policy or todetermine controversies arising out of someadministrativelaw.TheyareverysimilartoCourts,butarenotCourts.WhentheConstitutionspeaksof'Courts'inArt.136,227or228or inArt.233 to237or in theLists, itcontemplatesCourtsofCivil JudicaturebutnottribunalsotherthansuchCourts.ThisisthereasonforusingboththeexpressionsinArts.136and227.By "Courts" ismeantCourts of Civil Judicatureandby"tribunals", thosebodies ofmenwhoareappointed todecidecontroversiesarisingundercertainspeciallaws.AmongthepowersoftheStateisincludedthepowertodecide such controversies. This is undoubtedly one ofthe attributes of the State and is aptly called thejudicialpoweroftheState.Intheexerciseofthispower,
www.taxguru.in12
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
a clear division is thus noticeable. Broadly speaking,certain special matters go before tribunals, and theresidue goes before the ordinary Courts of CivilJudicature. Their procedures may differ, but thefunctions are not essentially different. Whatdistinguishes them has never been successfullyestablished...."Thus, the test for determining whether a body is atribunal ornot is to findoutwhether it is vestedwiththejudicialpoweroftheStatebyanylawtopronounceuponrightsorliabilitiesarisingoutofsomespeciallawand this test has been reiterated by this Court inJaswantSugarMillsLtd.v.LakshmiChandAIR1963SC677,AssociatedCementCompaniesLtd.v.P.N.SharmaAIR 1965 SC 1595 and in the recent decision of theConstitutionBenchinR.Gandhi(supra).
8.WemaynowexaminetheprovisionsofChapterXIXBoftheAct on Advance Ruling to find out whether the AuthoritypronouncesupontherightsorliabilitiesarisingoutoftheAct.Section 245N(a) of Chapter XIX B which defines "advancerulings"isextractedhereinbelow:
"245N. In this Chapter, unless the context otherwiserequires,-(a)"advanceruling"means-(i) a determination by the Authority in relation to atransactionwhichhasbeenundertakenor isproposedtobeundertakenbyanon-residentapplicant;or(ii) a determination by the Authority in relation tothe tax liability of a non-resident arising out of atransactionwhichhasbeenundertakenor isproposedtobeundertakenbyaresidentapplicantwithsuchnon-resident, and such determination shall include thedeterminationofanyquestionoflaworoffactspecifiedintheapplication;(iii) a determination or decision by the Authority inrespect of an issue relating to computation of totalincome which is pending before any income-taxauthority or the Appellate Tribunal and suchdetermination or decision shall include thedeterminationordecisionofanyquestionof laworof
www.taxguru.in13
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
fact relating to such computation of total incomespecifiedintheapplication:[Provided that where an advance ruling has beenpronounced,beforethedateonwhichtheFinanceAct,2003 receives the assent of the President, by theAuthority in respect of an application by a residentapplicantreferredtoinsub-clause(ii)ofthisclauseasitstoodimmediatelybeforesuchdate,suchrulingshallbebindingonthepersonsspecifiedinsection245S;]"
A plain reading of the very definition of advance ruling inSection 245N (a) would show that the Authority is calledupon to make a determination in relation to a transactionwhichhasbeenundertakenor isproposed tobeundertakenbyanon-residentapplicantorinrelationtothetaxliabilityofanon-residentarisingoutofsuchtransactionwhichhasbeenundertaken or proposed to be undertaken by a residentapplicant with such non-resident and such determinationmay be on any question of law or fact specified in theapplication. Further, the Authority may make adeterminationordecisioninrespectofaissuerelatingtothecomputation of total income which is pending before anyincome-tax authority or the Appellate Tribunal and suchdeterminationor decisionmay include thedeterminationordecision of any question of law or of fact relating to suchcomputation of total income specified in the application.Thus,theAuthoritymaydeterminenotonlyatransactionbutalso the tax liability arising out of a transaction and suchdeterminationmayincludeadeterminationofissueoffactorissue of law. Moreover, the Authority may determine thequantum of income and such determination may include adeterminationonaissueoffactorissueoflaw.
9.WealsofindthatthedeterminationoftheAuthorityisnotjust advisory but binding. Section 245S in Chapter XIX-B isquotedhereunder:
"245S. (1) The advance ruling pronounced by theAuthorityundersection245Rshallbebindingonly-(a) ontheapplicantwhohadsoughtit;(b) inrespectofthetransactioninrelationtowhichtherulinghadbeensought;and
www.taxguru.in14
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
(c) on the Commissioner, and the income-taxauthorities subordinate to him, in respect of theapplicantandthesaidtransaction.(2) The advance ruling referred to in sub-section (1)shallbebindingasaforesaidunlessthereisachangeinlaw or facts on the basis ofwhich the advance rulinghasbeenpronounced."
The binding effect of advance ruling as provided in Section245ShasbeendealtwithbytheAuthority(ChairmanandtwoMembers) inCyrilEugenePereira, Inre[1999]105Taxman273 (AAR-New Delhi) and at page 672 of the ITR, theAuthorityheld:
"Thus, sub-section (2) of section 245S has limited thebindingnatureoftherulingtothecaseoftheapplicantin respect of the transaction in relation to which theadvancerulingissoughtandtotheCommissionerandauthorities subordinate to him only in respect of theapplicant and the transaction involved. This is not tosaythataprincipleoflawlaiddowninacasewillnotbe followed in future. The Act has made the rulingbinding in the case of one transaction only and theparties involved in that case in respect of thattransaction. For other transactions and for otherparties,therulingwillbeofpersuasivenature."
The Authority, thus, held that the advance ruling of theAuthority is binding in the case of one transaction only andthe parties involved in respect of that transaction and forother parties, the ruling will be of persuasive nature. TheAuthority,however,hasclarifiedthatthisisnottosaythataprinciple of law laid down in a case will not be followed infuture.ThisdecisionoftheAuthorityinCyrilEugenePereira,Inre(supra)hasbeentakennoteofbythisCourtinUnionofIndia v. Azadi Bachao Andolan[2003] 263 ITR 706/132Taxman373toholdthattheadvancerulingoftheAuthorityis binding on the applicant, in respect of the transaction inrelation to which the ruling had been sought and on theCommissionerandtheincome-taxauthoritiessubordinatetohim and has persuasive value in respect of other parties.However, ithasalsobeenrightlyheldby theAuthority itself
www.taxguru.in15
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
thatthisdoesnotmeanthataprincipleoflawlaiddowninacasewillnotbefollowedinfuture.
10. As Section 245S expressly makes the Advance Rulingbindingontheapplicant,inrespectofthetransactionandontheCommissionerandtheincometaxauthoritiessubordinatetohim,theAuthorityisabodyactinginjudicialcapacity.H.M.Seervai in his book "Constitutional Law of India" (ForthEdition) while discussing the tests for identifying judicialfunctions in paragraph 16.99 quotes the following passagefromProf.deSmithsJudicialReviewonpage1502:
"An authority acts in a judicial capacity when, afterinvestigation and deliberation, it performs an act ormakes a decision that is binding and collusive andimposes obligation upon or affects the rights ofindividuals."
Wehave,therefore,nodoubtinourmindthattheAuthorityisa body exercising judicial power conferred on it by ChapterXIX-Bof theActand isa tribunalwithin themeaningof theexpressioninArticles136and227oftheConstitution...”
4.11 Section103ofCGSTActandRGSTAct,givesbindingeffect
ofitsrulingonApplicantaswellasontheconcernedofficerorthe
jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant, further Section
105 of CGSTAct andRGSTAct provides power of Civil Court to
AAR and AAAR. Excerpts of relevant paras of sections 103 and
105oftherelevantActsnamelyCGSTandRGSTrespectivelyare
parimateriaasinfra:
“...103.(1)TheadvancerulingpronouncedbytheAuthorityortheAppellateAuthorityunderthisChaptershallbebindingonly—(a) on the applicant who had sought it in respect of anymatterreferredtoinsub-section(2)ofsection97foradvanceruling;
www.taxguru.in16
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
(b) on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer inrespectoftheapplicant.(2)Theadvancerulingreferredtoinsub-section(1)shallbebindingunlessthelaw,factsorcircumstancessupportingtheoriginaladvancerulinghavechanged.
105.(1)TheAuthorityortheAppellateAuthorityshall,forthepurposeofexercisingitspowersregarding—(a)discoveryandinspection;(b) enforcing the attendance of any person and examininghimonoath;(c) issuing commissionsand compellingproductionof booksofaccountandotherrecords,have all the powers of a civil court under the Code of CivilProcedure,1908.(2)TheAuthorityortheAppellateAuthorityshallbedeemedtobeacivilcourtforthepurposesofsection195,butnotforthe purposes of Chapter XXVI of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973, and every proceeding before the Authorityor the Appellate Authority shall be deemed to be a judicialproceedingswithinthemeaningofsections193and228,andforthepurposeofsection196oftheIndianPenalCode...”
4.12 Considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Columbia Sportswear Company vs. Director of Income-tax,
Bangalore(supra)andsection103and105ofCGST&RGSTAct,it
isclearthatAARandAAARconstitutedunderCGSTandRGSTare
bodies exercising judicial power conferred on it by respective
laws and are tribunal within the meaning of the expression in
Articles136and227oftheConstitution.
www.taxguru.in17
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
4.13 It is submitted that the constitution of Tribunals namely
AARandAAARunderCGSThavebeennotifiedunderRGSTrules
wherein it has been provided that officer of the rank of Joint
CommissionerfromCentralandStategovernmentshallformAAR
under section 96 and Chief Commissioner of Central Tax and
Commissionerof State Tax shall formAAARunder section99of
CGST and RGST Acts. This makes it clear that legislature has
subsumed the power of judiciary and infact passed on to
Executive in gross violation of basic structure doctrine of
separationofpower.Itisfurthersubmittedthattheseprovisions
suffer from severe infirmities with regards to doctrine of
separationofpowers and the independenceof the judiciary that
forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The
provisions further run contrary to thedirectionswhichought to
be followed as guidelines regarding the structuring and
organisationofTribunalsinIndiaaswaslaiddownbytheHon’ble
SupremeCourtinR.Gandhi(2010)11SCC1).
4.14 TheHon’ble SupremeCourt in R. Gandhi case (supra) had
laid down the following directions and mandated that the
Government of India follow the directions as guidelines while
constitutingtheNCLTandNCLAT:
www.taxguru.in18
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
a. Only Judges and Advocates can be considered for
appointmentasJudicialMembersoftheTribunal.OnlyHighCourt
Judges,orJudgeswhohaveservedintherankofaDistrict Judge
forat leastfiveyearsorapersonwhohaspracticedasaLawyer
for ten years can be considered for appointment as a Judicial
Member;
b. PersonswhohaveheldaGroupAorequivalentpostunder
the Central or State Government with experience in the Indian
Company Law Service (Legal Branch) and Indian Legal Service
(Grade-1) cannot be considered for appointment as judicial
members.TheexpertiseinCompanyLawserviceorIndianLegal
servicewillatbestenablethemtobeconsideredforappointment
astechnicalmembers;
c. As the NCLT takes over the functions of High Court, the
membersshouldasnearlyaspossiblehavethesamepositionand
status asHigh Court Judges. This can be achieved, not by giving
thesalaryandperksofaHighCourtJudgetothemembers,butby
ensuringthatpersonswhoareasnearlyequalinrank,experience
or competence toHigh Court Judges are appointed asmembers.
Therefore,onlyofficerswhoareholding theranksofSecretaries
or Additional Secretaries alone can be considered for
appointmentasTechnicalmembers.
www.taxguru.in19
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
d. A `Technical Member' presupposes an experience in the
fieldtowhichtheTribunalrelates.
e. Instead of a five-member Selection Committee with Chief
Justice of India (or his nominee) as Chairperson and two
SecretariesfromtheMinistryofFinanceandCompanyAffairsand
the Secretary in the Ministry of Labour and Secretary in the
MinistryofLawandJusticeasmembers,theSelectionCommittee
shouldbroadlybeonthefollowinglines:
i. Chief Justice of India or his nominee - Chairperson
(withacastingvote);
ii. A senior Judgeof theSupremeCourtorChief Justice
ofHighCourt-Member;
iii. Secretary in the Ministry of Finance and Company
Affairs-Member;and
iv. SecretaryintheMinistryofLawandJustice–Member
f. Thetermofofficeofthreeyearsshallbechangedtoaterm
ofsevenorfiveyearssubjecttoeligibilityforappointmentforone
more term. This is because considerable time is required to
achieveexpertise in theconcerned field.A termof threeyears is
very short and by the time the members achieve the required
knowledge, expertise and efficiency, one term will be over.
www.taxguru.in20
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
Furtherthesaidtermofthreeyearswiththeretirementageof65
years is perceived as having been tailor-made for persons who
haveretiredorshortlytoretireandencouragestheseTribunalsto
be treated as post- retirement havens. If these Tribunals are to
function effectively and efficiently they should be able to attract
youngermemberswhowillhaveareasonableperiodofservice.
g. Any person appointed asmembers should be prepared to
totallydisassociatehimselffromtheExecutive.
h. To maintain independence and security in service,
suspension of the President/Chairman ormember of a Tribunal
canbeonlywiththeconcurrenceoftheChiefJusticeofIndia.
i. TheadministrativesupportforallTribunalsshouldbefrom
the Ministry of Law & Justice. Neither the Tribunals nor its
members shall seek or be provided with facilities from the
respective sponsoring or parent Ministries or concerned
Department.
j. Two-MemberBenchesoftheTribunalshouldalwayshavea
judicial member. Whenever any larger or special benches are
constituted, the number of Technical Members shall not exceed
theJudicialMembers.
www.taxguru.in21
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
4.15 The above guidelines were given by the Hon’ble Supreme
Courtbasedonthefollowingprinciplesasenumeratedinpara44
ofthesaidjudgment:-
i) A legislature can enact a law transferring the jurisdiction
exercisedbycourtsinregardtoanyspecifiedsubject(otherthan
those which are vested in courts by express provisions of the
Constitution)toanytribunal.
ii) All courtsare tribunals.Any tribunal towhichanyexisting
jurisdiction of courts is transferred should also be a Judicial
Tribunal.ThismeansthatsuchTribunalshouldhaveasmembers,
personsofarank,capacityandstatusasnearlyaspossibleequal
to the rank, status and capacity of the courtwhichwas till then
dealing with such matters and the members of the Tribunal
should have the independence and security of tenure associated
withJudicialTribunals.
iii) Whenever there is need for `Tribunals', there is no
presumption that there should be technical members in the
Tribunals. When any jurisdiction is shifted from courts to
Tribunals,onthegroundofpendencyanddelayincourts,andthe
jurisdictionsotransferreddoesnotinvolveanytechnicalaspects
www.taxguru.in22
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
requiringtheassistanceofexperts,theTribunalsshouldnormally
have only judicial members. Only where the exercise of
jurisdiction involves inquiry and decisions into technical or
special aspects, where presence of technical members will be
useful and necessary, Tribunals should have technicalmembers.
IndiscriminateappointmentoftechnicalmembersinallTribunals
willdiluteandadverselyaffecttheindependenceoftheJudiciary.
iv) TheLegislaturecanre-organizethejurisdictionsof Judicial
Tribunals.Forexample,itcanprovidethataspecifiedcategoryof
casestriedbyahighercourtcanbetriedbyalowercourtorvice
versa(Astandardexample is thevariationofpecuniary limitsof
courts). Similarly, while constituting Tribunals, the Legislature
can prescribe the qualifications/eligibility criteria. The same is
however subject to Judicial Review. If the court in exercise of
judicial review is of the view that such tribunalisation would
adverselyaffecttheindependenceofjudiciaryorthestandardsof
judiciary, the courtmay interfere to preserve the independence
and standards of judiciary. Such an exercise will be part of the
checks and balances measures to maintain the separation of
powers and to prevent any encroachment, intentional or
unintentional,byeitherthelegislatureorbytheexecutive.”
www.taxguru.in23
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
4.16 ItissubmittedthateventhoughtheHon’bleSupremeCourt
hasprescribedthevariousguidelinesinthedecisionofR.Gandhi
(supra)with regard to the constitution of theNCLT andNCLAT,
thesamestandsapplicabletoallthetribunalsinIndia.
4.17 The Petitioner is concerned about the independence of
judicialtribunalsandseekstoprotectthesameandhence,isfiling
thepresentwritpetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionof
Indiaaspublicinterestlitigation.
4.18 ThepetitionerhasdirectlyfiledapetitionunderArticle226
of the Constitution as the impugned provisions and Rules are
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 50 of the Constitution.
TherighttolifeunderArticle21includestherighttojusticebyan
independent judiciary and by a Tribunal which is free from
executiveorpoliticalinfluence.ThePetitionerisvitallyconcerned
withtheadministrationofjusticeandmaintenanceofruleoflaw
which has been held to be part of the basic structure of the
Constitution.
4.19 The glaring infirmities and consequences to the
independent judicial administration of the various tribunals and
appellatetribunalshascompelledthepresentPetitionertofilethe
www.taxguru.in24
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
4.20. That to the best of knowledge of the Petitioner, no public
interestpetitionraisingthesameissueisfiledbeforethisHon’ble
Court.
(5) SOURCEOFINFORMATION
5. Thatsourceofinformationofthefactspleaded,isbasedon
the relevant notifications published in the Official Gazette
published byMinistry of Law and Justice from time to time and
made available to the public on their official website
www.cbec.gov.in and from various notification published by the
State of Rajasthan from time to time andmade available to the
public on their official website and upon the further inquiries
madebythePetitionertodeterminetheveracityofthesame.The
information is based on public documents which are freely
availableinpublicdomain.
(6) NATURE&EXTENTOFINJURYCAUSED/APPREHENDED
6. It is submitted that the constitution of Tribunals namely
AARandAAARunderCGSThavebeennotifiedunderRGSTrules
wherein it has been provided that officer of the rank of Joint
CommissionerfromCentralandStategovernmentshallformAAR
www.taxguru.in25
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
under section 96 and Chief Commissioner of Central Tax and
Commissionerof State Tax shall formAAARunder section99of
CGST and RGST Acts. This makes it clear that legislature has
subsumed the power of judiciary and infact passed on to
Executive in gross violation of basic structure doctrine of
separationofpower.Itisfurthersubmittedthattheseprovisions
suffer from severe infirmities with regards to doctrine of
separationofpowers and the independenceof the judiciary that
forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The
provisions further run contrary to thedirectionswhichought to
be followed as guidelines regarding the structuring and
organisationofTribunalsinIndiaaswaslaiddownbytheHon’ble
SupremeCourtinR.Gandhi(2010)11SCC1).
(7) REPRESENTATIONSMADE
7. ThatthePetitionerhasnotmadeanyrepresentationinthis
regard to the authorities as the Petitioner is challenging the
constitutionalvalidityoftheimpugnedprovisionsofthesaidAct,
therefore,thereisnorequirementofanykindofrepresentationto
bemadetotheauthorities.
(8) GROUNDS
a) It is submitted that, this Writ Petition furnishes a typical
instanceofawidespreadmaladywhichhasinfestedthelegislative
www.taxguru.in26
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
system in India, the tendencyof the legislatureofnot exercising
legislativerestraintandcrossing their limitsbyencroaching into
the judicial domain, contrary to the broad separation of powers
envisagedunderourConstitution.
b) CompositionoftheAuthorityunderthepreRSTregime:-
The advance ruling in India is rendered by an Authority
constituted specifically for this purpose known as the Authority
forAdvanceRulings.ItconsistsofaChairmanandtwoMembers.
TheChairmanisaretiredJudgeoftheSupremeCourt.Oneofthe
MemberstobeappointedtobeamemberoftheCBDT,whomay
be referred to as theRevenueMember.TheotherMember is an
officer of the Indian Legal Service, who is qualified to be an
Additional Secretary to the Government of India and may be
referred to as the Law member. The salaries and allowances
payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of the
Membershavebeenprescribedby theGovernmentof India.The
Constitution of the Authority is such that it functions as an
independentquasi-judicialbodydeemedtobeaCivilCourtforthe
purposeofSection195oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973.
c) It is submitted that, as mentioned hereinabove earlier
before the GST regime, the authority of Advance Ruling was
headed by a Judicialmemberwhowas a retired SupremeCourt
Judge but subsequently after the enactment of the biggest tax
reform GST, the Respondents have eliminated judicial member
www.taxguru.in27
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
from the constitutionof theAAR andAAAR. It is also submitted
thatasper the legislationunder theAct thedecisionofAARand
AAARisbindingontheapplicant,ontheconcernedofficerorthe
jurisdictionalofficer in respectof the applicant in respectof the
transaction, therefore, the authority is a body acting in judicial
capacity. Therefore, the authority is a body exercising judicial
powerand isaTribunalwithin themeaningof theexpression in
articles 136 and 227 of the Constitution.However, as there is a
totalabsenceofajudicialmemberintheconstitutionofAARand
AAAR, the entire constitution of AAR and AAAR is “Coram non
judice”. Hence a legal proceeding before the AAR and AAAR is
outsidethepresenceofa judge(withouta judge),withimproper
venue, or without jurisdiction, therefore, any adjudication and
judgmentpassedbytheAARandAAARwhichhasnoauthorityto
adjudication under the Act which is clearly in violation of the
Article 14 and 50 of the Constitution of India and would be
“Coram non Judice” and a nullity. It is further submitted that in
termsofsection96oftheCGSTandRGSTAct,theParliamenthas
abdicated its authority by empowering the Central Government
andStateGovernmenttoframeRules.Thisamountstodelegation
of essential judicial functions that is unconstitutional. This also
amountstothegrantingofanuncanalisedpowertotheexecutive
tocontrolvitalbodiesthatperform,inessence,judicialfunctions.
On this ground, s 96 of the CGSTAct, 2017 andRGSTAct, 2017
www.taxguru.in28
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
alongwith rulesmadepertaining to these sections deserve tobe
struck down on the ground of Article 14 for arbitrariness and
Article50oftheConstitutionofIndia.
d) It is submitted that, thepresentCGSTAct, 2017andRGST
Act,2017andrulesthereunderinsofarasitamendsthestructure
and re-organization of AAR and AAAR is unconstitutional and
violative of the basic structure of the Constitution. Absence of
Judicial member has led tomockery of principles enunciated in
thebasicstructureofconstitution.Theimpugnedprovisionsand
the impugnedRules, 2017violate the principlesof separationof
powers which is not only part of basic structure but also an
elementary component of the rule of law. That in Kesavananda
Bharativ.StateofKerala,AIR1973SC1461andinMinervaMills
Ltd.v.UnionofIndia,(1980)3SCC625,largerbenchesofHon’ble
SupremeCourthaveheld,interalia,thatanindependentjudiciary
and it'spowerof judicial reviewareamong thebasic featuresof
theConstitution.
e) TheHon’ble SupremeCourt speaking throughConstitution
BenchinS.P.SampathKumarv.UnionofIndia,(1987)1SCC124
atpara7,hasheldthat,
“It can no longer be disputed that total insulation of thejudiciary fromall formsof interference fromtheco-ordinatebranchesoftheGovernmentisabasicessentialfeatureoftheConstitution, the same independence from possibility ofExecutive pressure or influencemust also be ensured to theChairman,viceChairmanandMembersoftheAdministrative
www.taxguru.in29
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
Tribunals... The Constitution makers have made anxiousprovision to secure total independence of the judiciary fromexecutivepressureorinfluence.”
That the constitutional guarantee of an independent judicial
branchandtheconstitutionalschemeofseparationofpowers
canbeeasilyandseriouslyundermined,ifthelegislatureswere
toentrusttheTribunalswithMembersnotbeingMembersofthe
‘Judicialservice’oftheState,astheyarenotentitledtoprotection
similartotheconstitutionalprotectionaffordedtotheCourts.
f) That if the constitutional Scheme and intent are to be
preserved, it must be held that the ‘total insulation of the
judiciary’referredtointhecaseofS.P.SampathKumarv.Union
ofIndia,(1987)1SCC124isnotjustforthe‘judiciary’comprising
of Judges appointed to the regular Courts. The ‘judiciary’ in this
context must be understood as taking within its fold, all courts
and Tribunals and other adjudicatory bodies, whatever be the
labelassignedtothem.Theindependenceandimpartialitywhich
areessential for theproperexerciseofthe judicialpower,are to
besecurednotonlyfortheCourtsbutalsoforTribunalsandtheir
members,who,thoughtheydonotbelongtothe‘JudicialService’
are entrusted with judicial powers. Any other view would
effectively eviscerate the constitutional guarantee of an
independentJudicialBranch.
www.taxguru.in30
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
g) It is submitted that, the safeguards which ensure
independence and impartiality are not for promoting personal
prestigeof the functionarybut forpreservingandprotecting the
rightsofthecitizensandotherswhoaresubjecttothejurisdiction
oftheTribunal,andforensuringthatsuchTribunalswillbeable
tocommandtheconfidenceofthepublic.
h) The Hon’ble Supreme Court had laid down that when
judicialpowersaretransferredfromtheCourtstoTribunals, the
standard of the Tribunals should approximately be the same as
thatoftheCourts.Theimpugnedprovisionsandrulesrelatingto
theappointmentoftheMembersareinviolationofthisprinciple
laid downby theHon’ble SupremeCourt. It is shocking that the
impugned Provisions and Rules of 2017 do not contain any
provision for appointmentof JudicialMembers toAARorAAAR,
which is directly contrary to various decisions of the Hon’ble
SupremeCourtandHighCourtsinIndia.
i) Itissubmittedthat,Article50oftheConstitutionispartof
the basic structure of the Constitution, and is one example of a
specific constitutionalprovisionembodying thebasic featuresof
separation of powers and rule of law. The Impugned provisions
directlyencroachintothesebasicfeaturesandderogatefromthe
samebyvestingunbridledpowersintheExecutiveandthesame
is in complete breach of Article 50 which emphasizes that the
www.taxguru.in31
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
Stateshalltakestepstoseparatethejudiciaryfromtheexecutive
inthepublicservicesoftheState.
j) InabsenceofjudicialmemberinAARandAAAR,itwilllead
to executive takingpowerof judiciary andexecutivewhoenjoys
the office to the pleasure of government. There has been
significant number of decisions against the tax department
constitutingTechnicalandJudicialMemberunderpreGSTregime,
it will now be apprehensive to pass orders against the relevant
ministry. Ironically, it vitiates the very power of judiciary by
making one judge in his own cause “Nemo judex in causa sua”.
Thus under the impugned Provisions and Rules, the
administrativeassistanceandsupporttoallthetribunalsistobe
provided by the parentministry. This is directly contrary to the
guidelinesprescribedbytheHon’bleSupremeCourtinthecaseof
R.Gandhi(supra)andColumbiaSportswearCo.(supra).
(9) DELAY, IF ANY, IN FILING THE PETITION AND
EXPLANATIONTHEREOF
SincevalidityofprovisionsofCGSTActandRGSTActwithrules
made thereunder is assailed by way of this petition, there does
notarisetheissueofdelay.
(10)RELIEFSPRAYEDFOR
www.taxguru.in32
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
10. It is thereforehumblyprayed that thisPetitionmaykindly
beallowedbyissuingappropriatewrit,orderordirections:-
(a) Declaring Chapter XVII of the Central Goods and
ServicesTax(RGST)Act,2017moreparticularlySection96
which relate to ‘Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) and
Section99whichrelateto‘AppellateAuthorityforAdvance
Ruling (AAAR)as ultra vires of Article 14 and 50 of the
ConstitutionofIndia;
(b) Declaring Chapter XVII of the Rajasthan Goods and
Services Tax (RGST) Act, 2017 more particularly Sections
96whichrelateto‘AuthorityforAdvanceRuling(AAR)’and
Section99whichrelateto‘AppellateAuthorityforAdvance
Ruling (AAAR)’ as ultra vires of Article 14 and 50 of the
ConstitutionofIndia;
(c) Declaring Chapter XII of the Central Goods and
ServicesTax(CGST)Rules,2017moreparticularlyRule103
which relate to the “Qualification and Appointment of
membersoftheAuthorityforAdvanceRuling”asultravires
ofArticle14and50oftheConstitutionofIndia;
www.taxguru.in33
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
(d) Quashingandset-asidethe NotificationNo.9/2017–
CentralTaxdated28.06.2017 in termsof s. 96and s.99of
theCentralGoodsandServicesTaxAct,2017;
(e) Quashing and setting-aside the Notification
No.9/2017 – State Tax dated 29.06.2017 in terms of s. 96
ands.99oftheRajasthanGoodsandServicesTaxAct,2017;
(h) Granting any other relief or reliefs in the facts and
circumstancesofthepresentcaseasmaybedeemfitbythis
Hon’bleCourt;
(11) INTERIMORDER,IFPRAYEDFOR
11. That during the pendency and disposal of the present
petition,therespondentsmaybedirected
(a) Operation of the Chapter XVII of the Central Goods
and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 more particularly
Section 96 which relate to ‘Authority for Advance Ruling
(AAR)’andSection99whichrelate to ‘AppellateAuthority
for Advance Ruling (AAAR)’ and Chapter XVII of the
Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax (RGST) Act, 2017more
particularly Sections 96 which relate to ‘Authority for
Advance Ruling (AAR)’ and Section 99 which relate to
‘Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR)’ and
www.taxguru.in34
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
Chapter XII of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST)
Rules,2017moreparticularlyRule103whichrelatetothe
“QualificationandappointmentofmembersoftheAuthority
forAdvanceRuling”maybestayed
(12)CAVEAT
12. ThatthePetitionerhascometoknowthataCaveatatlarge
on behalf of the Union of India, Chief Commissioner of CGST &
Commissioner of CGST was filed before this Hon’ble Court on
07.10.2017. It appears that the said caveat has come to expire.
ThePetitionerhasnoinformationaboutfilingofanysubsequent
caveat extending/renewing the aforesaid caveat dated
07.10.2017.
HUMBLEPETITIONERTHROUGHHISCOUNSEL
(SHARADKOTHARI/LALITPAREEK)ADVOCATES
NOTES:-
1. No such PIL agitating the issues enumerated herein has previously been submitted before this Hon'ble Court or before any other Court in India. 2. P.F. Notices and extra copies will be submitted within the prescribed time. 3. This Petition has been typed by my private steno in my office.
www.taxguru.in35
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
4. Pie papers were not readily available hence this Petition has been typed on these papers. 5. Vires has not been challenged in this case. 6. Email ID of undersigned counsel : [email protected]
(SHARADKOTHARI/LALITPAREEK)ADVOCATES
www.taxguru.in36
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREFOR
RAJASTHANATJODHPUR
D.B . C IVILWRIT PETITION(PIL) NO.___/2018
Petitioner:-AbhishekChopra
VERSUSRespondents:-UnionOfIndia&others
AFFIDAVITINSUPPORTOFPETITION
I,AbhishekChopraS/oShriRajeshChopraAgedabout33
years, R/o Pali Marwar do hereby solemnly state on oath as
under:-
1. That I am the petitioner in the presentwrit petition
and amwell conversantwiththefactsandcircumstancesofthe
case.
2.That the present Petition has been drafted bymy counsel
undermyinstructions.
www.taxguru.in37
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
3. ThatfactsmentionedinthePetitionarecorrecttothe
bestofmyknowledge.
4. Thatlegalsubmissionsmentionedhereinarebelieved
tobecorrectonthebasisoflegaladvicegivenbymycounsel.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, the above nameddeponent dohereby solemnly stateon
oaththatthefactsmentionedintheParaNo.1to4ofthisaffidavit
are true to my personal knowledge. No part of it is false and
nothinghasbeenconcealed.SOHELPMEGOD.
DEPONENT
DATE:-
www.taxguru.in38
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREFOR
RAJASTHANATJODHPUR
D.B . C IVILWRIT PETITION(PIL) NO.___/2018
Petitioner:-AbhishekChopra
VERSUS
Respondents:-UnionOfIndia&others
AFFIDAVITINSUPPORTOFDOCUMENTS
I, Abhishek Chopra S/o Shri Rajesh Chopra Aged about 33
years, R/o Pali Marwar do hereby solemnly state on oath as
under:-
1. That I am the petitioner in the presentwrit petition
and amwellconversantwith the factsandcircumstancesof the
case.
2.ThatAnnexure-1toAnnexure-5aretrueandcorrectcopies
oftheiroriginals.
DEPONENT
www.taxguru.in39
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
VERIFICATION
I, the above nameddeponent dohereby solemnly stateon
oaththatthefactsmentionedintheParaNo.1&2ofthisaffidavit
are true to my personal knowledge. No part of it is false and
nothinghasbeenconcealed.SOHELPMEGOD.
DEPONENT
www.taxguru.in40
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREFOR
RAJASTHANATJODHPUR
D.B. CIVILWRITPETITION(PIL)NO.___/2018
Petitioner:-AbhishekChopra
VERSUS
Respondents:-UnionofIndia&others
ADDITIONALAFFIDAVIT
I,AbhishekChopra S/oShriRajeshChopraAgedabout33
years, R/o Pali Marwar do hereby solemnly state on oath as
under:-
1. That I am the Petitioner Society and well
conversantwiththefactsandcircumstancesofthecase.
2. ThatasperHighCourtRules,Iamsubmittingmy
addressproof,whichmaykindlybetreatedaspart&parcel
ofthisWritPetition.
www.taxguru.in41
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
3. That the address mentioned in the Petition and
theaddressmentionedhereinareofthesameplace.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, theabovenameddeponentdoherebysolemnly
stateonoaththatthefactsmentionedintheParaNo.1to3
ofthisaffidavitaretruetomypersonalknowledge.Nopartof
itisfalseandnothinghasbeenconcealed.SOHELPMEGOD.
DEPONENT
DATE:-
www.taxguru.in42
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREFOR
RAJASTHANATJODHPUR
D.B . C IVILWRIT PETITION(PIL) NO.___/2018
Petitioner VERSUS RespondentsAbhishekChopra UnionOfIndia&others
I N D E X S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGENO.01. WritPetition(PIL) 01-3502. AffidavitinsupportofPetition 36-37 03. AffidavitinsupportofDocuments 38-3904. AdditionalAffidavit 40-41 DOCUMENTS:Annex.1 CopyofChapterXVIIofCentralGoods
andServicesTax(CGST)Act,2017. Annex.2 CopyofChapterXVIItheRajasthanGoods
andServicesTax(RGST)Act,2017. Annex.3 CopyChapterXIIoftheCentralGoods
andServicesTax(RGST)Rules,2017 Annex.6 CopyoftheNotificationNo.9/2017–
CentralTaxdated28.06.2017Annex.7CopyoftheNotificationNo.9/2017–
StateTaxdated29.06.2017____________________________________________________________________________
(SHARADKOTHARI/LALITPAREEK)
ADVOCATES
www.taxguru.in43
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. /2018 Abhishek Chopra V/s Union Of India & Others
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREFOR
RAJASTHANATJODHPUR
D.B . C IVILWRIT PETITION(PIL) NO.___/2018
Petitioner VERSUS RespondentsAbhishekChopra UnionofIndia&others
S Y N O P S I S
Dates Particulars Bywayof instantPILvalidityofChapterXVIIof
the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST)Act,2017,moreparticularly Section96which relateto ‘Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) andSection 99 which relate to ‘Appellate AuthorityforAdvanceRuling(AAAR)’;ChapterXVIIoftheRajasthan Goods and Services Tax (RGST) Act,2017moreparticularlySections96whichrelateto ‘Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR)’ andSection 99 which relate to ‘Appellate Authorityfor Advance Ruling (AAAR)’; Chapter XII of theCentral Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules,2017moreparticularlyRule103whichrelatetothe “Qualification and appointment ofmembersof the Authority for Advance Ruling”; has beenassailed as the same seeks to constitute theauthority of Advance Ruling and AppellateAuthority of Advance Ruling in violation ofArticle 14 & 50 of Constitution of India and incontravention of the law laid down by theHon’bleSupremeCourtinthecasesofColumbiaSportswear Company vs. Director of Income-tax,Bangalore) reported in (2012)11SCC224asalsoUnionofIndiavs.R.Gandhireportedin(2010)11SCC1.Hencethepresentpetition.
(SHARADKOTHARI/LALITPAREEK)ADVOCATES