Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. From a perusal of the above quoted Article, it would be seen that it Page No.# 37/73 provides the Parliament and the State Legislature the concurrent power to legislate on Goods and Service Tax. Article 246A starts with a non-obstinate clause thereby overriding Article 246 and Article 254 of the Constitution. Article 246A does not provide a repugnancy clause like Article 254, which stipulates that the law made by the Parliament on the subject in the concurrent list shall prevail over conflicting laws made by the State Legislature. It is also pertinent to observe that Article 246A are available both to the Parliament and the State Legislature, save and except for the exclusive power of the Parliament to enact GST legislation where the supply of goods or services take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. In the case of Union of India and Others Vs. VKC Footsteps India Private Limited reported in (2022) 2 SCC 603, the Supreme Court while noticing the changes in the Constitutional Scheme introduced by Article 246A categorically observed that Article 246A embodies the Constitutional Principle of simultaneous levy as distinct from the principle of concurrence.

10. Before further proceeding to analyze Article 279A of the Constitution, it is relevant to note that a reading of the Objects and Reasons of the Constitution (122nd Amendment) (GST) Bill, 2014, the Parliamentary reports and the speeches would indicate that Article 246A and Article 279A were Page No.# 41/73 introduced with the objective of enhancing cooperative federalism and harmony between the States and the Centre. In that context, Article 279A(6) of the Constitution is required to be analyzed. Sub-Article (6) of Article 279A brings into effect the concept of cooperative federalism. In terms with the said Sub-Article, the recommendations to be made by the GST Council has to be made through a harmonized deliberation between the federal units.

From the above quoted paragraph, it would be seen that the Supreme Court after taking into account the object behind the Kerala Building Rules observed that the recommendation from the Greater Cochin Development Authority and the Chief Town Planner were sine qua non for granting exemption from operation of the Rules by the State Government and as such held that the State Government was not legally justified in granting exemption.

43. In the instant case, it would be seen that both the Central Act as well as the State Act do not define the term "recommendation". Under such circumstances, it would be necessary to understand the impact of the word "recommendation" in the context of the provisions of the Constitution as well as the Central Act and State Act. In the earlier segments of the instant Page No.# 58/73 judgment, this Court had dealt with Article 246A as well as Article 279A of the Constitution. Article 246A of the Constitution confers both upon the Parliament and the State Legislature simultaneous power to legislate on Goods and Service Tax. The said power can be exercised notwithstanding anything contained in Article 246 and 254 of the Constitution. It is also pertinent to take note of that the said power conferred on the Parliament and the State Legislature is not subject to Article 279A except to the extent that in respect to the Goods and Service Tax to be levied on petroleum, crude, high speed diesel, motor spirit (commonly known as petrol), natural gas and aviation turbine fuel, the power can be exercised under Article 246A from the date recommended by the GST Council.