Challenge to Section 174(2) of Punjab GST Act Kept Pending SC Verdict

Case Title: M/s Kapsons Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab & Others
Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Petition Number: CWP-34951-2024
Category: Constitutional Validity – Transitional Provisions
Date of Judgment: 20.12.2024
Relevant Section: Section 174(2) of Punjab GST Act, 2017
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

🧾 Facts of the Case

[Para 1–4]
The petitioner challenged the validity of Section 174(2) of the Punjab State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which relates to transitional provisions post GST implementation. The issue had already been considered in similar writs before the same court and adjudicated in the case of Tecnimont Spa India Project Office vs. State of Punjab and Another, decided on 10.12.2024.

❓Question(s) in Consideration

[Para 3]

• Whether Section 174(2) of the Punjab GST Act, 2017 is ultra vires the Constitution of India?

• Whether proceedings under repealed laws can be continued under this section?

🧭 Observations of the Court

[Para 3]

• The court noted that identical issues were addressed in the Tecnimont Spa case.

• It was informed that the Kerala High Court upheld the provision’s validity.

• The Supreme Court, in T.S. Belaraman vs. CTO, has granted leave and stayed coercive action under similar circumstances.

• The Court observed that since the apex court is seized of the matter, a final decision should rest with it.

🏛️ Judgment of the Court

[Para 4–5]

• The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing that the challenge to Section 174(2) will abide by the final decision in T.S. Belaraman vs. CTO pending before the Supreme Court.

• Interim protection granted earlier would continue until the Supreme Court rules.

🔍 Between Fine Lines

• The petitioner questioned the constitutional validity of transitional provisions under the Punjab GST Act.

• The same issue is already under adjudication in the Supreme Court.

• The High Court, relying on its earlier judgment, deferred to the SC’s decision.

• Interim protection from coercive action continues until final verdict.

• Petition disposed with liberty to be governed by SC ruling in T.S. Belaraman.

📚 Summary of Referred Cases

Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”