‘SC order won’t impact GST council structure’

NEW DELHI: The architecture and authority of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council remain unaltered despite the recent ruling of the Supreme Court, three officials associated with the indirect tax regime said. The Council may take note of the court’s observations in its next meeting, they said.

The top court on Thursday ruled that the recommendations of the GST Council were not binding on either the Union government or the states. As the apex court stated the obvious, no amendments in the GST laws are expected, the officials maintained, seeking anonymity.

“The Supreme Court in the context of the issue (tax issue related to ocean freight) has observed that the recommendation of the GST Council has persuasive value for primary legislation, and its recommendations are binding in so far as subordinate legislation is concerned, such as issue of notification, framing of rules, prescribing rates and taxes, etc,” one of them said.

Article 279A of the Constitution states that the GST Council shall make “recommendations” to the central government and the states on several matters, a second official said. The same article also says that the Council shall be guided by the need for “a harmonised structure” of GST and for the development of “a harmonised national market” for goods and services, he added.

“This requires a collaborative approach. And, in the past five years, all decisions of the Council were unanimous, barring one (tax rate on lottery),” the second official said. “That was also accepted by the dissenting states. Hence, in the spirit of cooperative federalism, the Council’s recommendations have been accepted countries can join the initiative as it moves forward.

Unlike traditional trade blocs, IPEF members won’t negotiate tariffs or ease market access. The framework is perceived as a bid by the US to assume a larger role in the economic sphere and regain credibility following former president Donald Trump’s decision in early 2017 to pull out of the Trans- Pacific Partnership (TPP). by the Centre and states.”

Article 279A empowers the Council to recommend on matters related to GST laws, principles of levy, apportionment of GST levies on interstate supplies, principles relating to place of supply, GST rates and special provisions with respect to specific states, the first official said.

“These recommendations are arrived at after deliberation in the Council in which all states participate. These recommendations of the Council are implemented by the Centre and states through normal legislative process under their respective Acts,” he said.

“The Supreme Court has only elaborated this mechanism while making its observations. This judgment does not in any way lay down anything new in so far as the GST institutional mechanism is concerned, does not have any bearing on the way GST has been functioning in India, nor lays down anything fundamentally different to the existing framework of GST,” he added.

The Supreme Court has reiterated the legal position of GST Council, which always existed, a global tax consultant and expert

‘wuzu’ (ablution) inside the mosque. “After hearing arguments of both sides, the court will on Tuesday give its verdict on which petition is to be heard first,” said Madan Mohan Yadav, a lawyer for the Hindu side.

The Hindu side argued that since a court-appointed commission has completed its survey work of the mosque premises, the opponents should present their objections on it. Yadav said they pleaded to make available the commission’s report and videography done by it to present its side on it. on GST matters said. “The apex court ruled that the recommendations of GST Council on the primary GST law have only a persuasive value, which no doubt is a correct interpretation of the constitutional construct of GST,” he said, requesting anonymity.

“However, the question that begs an answer is whether, in the context of the dispute (over tax on ocean freight) before the apex court, was such an observation particularly required,” he added.

“While the judgement on ocean freight in an individual case is appreciable, the context of observations regarding the GST Council is not clear because there was never any doubt about the legal position of the body,” a second tax expert working for a multinational consulting firm said on condition of anonymity. “The Council functioned smoothly on the same legal principle since July 1, 2017.”

The GST Council would continue to function unhindered if it continues to take decisions in the right spirit of cooperative federalism and take all members on board before reaching to any conclusion, the experts said.

ON MAY 19, THE SC RULED THAT THE GST COUNCIL’S SUGGESTIONS WERE NOT BINDING ON EITHER THE CENTRE OR THE STATES

US OFFICIALS SAID THE INDO-PACIFIC ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK IS AN OPEN PLATFORM AND OTHER COUNTRIES CAN JOIN THE TRADE INITIATIVE AS THE BODY MOVES FORWARD

Mohammad Tauhid Khan, the lawyer of the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee which manages the Gyanvapi mosque, argued that the writ is not sustainable, hence, it should be dismissed.

A fresh petition was also moved on Monday by Dr Kulpati Tiwari, Mahant of Kashi Vishwanath temple, for regular “pujan” (worship) of the “Shivling”, which he said was found in the Gyanvapi mosque. On May 16, the lower court had directed the district administration to seal a spot in the Gyanvapi Masjid complex after counsels representing the Hindu petitioners said a Shivling was found Monday during a court-mandated videography survey.

A mosque management committee spokesperson disputed the claim, saying the object was a fountain. The Hindu side claimed that the Shivling was found close to the “wazookhana”--a reservoir used by Muslims to perform ritual ablutions before offering the namaz