New Doc 06-07-2024 13.11

IIJLUNATIONALMOOTCOURTCOMPETITION-2018
LISTOFABBREVJATTONS
AIR AllIndiaReporter
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Hon''ble Honourable
I.P.C.. EutopianPenalCode
Ltd. Limited
Ors. Others
Pvt. Private
SC Supreme Court
sec Supreme Court Cases
SCR SupremeCourtReport
SLP Special LeavePetition
Sec. SectionUoder
u/a. Article
u/s. UnderSection
v. versus
Pg. Page
FIR FirstInfom,ationReport
MEMORIALONTHEBEHALFOFRESPONDENT Page'2
oScannedwithOKENScanner
INDEXOFAUTHOR1TIES
CASESCITED:
l. SaurabhChaudharivUnionOfIndia,AIR2004SC2212
2. RamKrishnaDalmiav.Tendol.kar.1958AIR538,L959SCR279
3. HilrishanknrBaglav.StateofMadhyaPradesh,1954AJR465,t955SCR313
4. KishanPrakashSham1av.Unionoflndia,2001(3)TMIIO18SC
5. Garewalv.StateofPunjab, AIR19S6,SC512
6. Banarsidasv.StateofMadhya.Pradesh,AIR1958,SC909,P..913
7. WestBengalV.UnionofIndia,1963AIR1241,1964SCR(l)371
8. Kingv/sSmith,392U.S.309(1968)
9. StuteofRajusthanv/sUOI,1977ArR1361,1978SCR(l)
10. StateofHaryanav/sStateofPunjnb,IT2004(5)SC72,2004
11. Shamshersinghv/sStateofPunjab,AIR1974SC2192
BOOKSREFERRED:
I. M.P.Jain,EutopianConstitutionalLaw,5thEdition,WadhwaPublication,2009.
2. A.V.Di,cey,LawofConstitution,10111ed.2012,UniversalLawPublication.NewDelhi.
.3.Prof.S.R.Bhansali1TheConstitutionofEutopia.151ed.2007,EutopiaPubhshingHouse,
Jodhpur.
4. Dr.J. N.Pandey,ConstitutionalLawOfEut:opia51sted.2014, CentralLawAgency,

Allahabad
5. JagdisbSwarup,ConstitutjonofEutopia,2nded,2008,ModemLawPublications,
AIJahabad
MEMORIALONTHEBEHALFOFRESPONDENT Page3
STATUTESREFERRED:
I.ConstituttionOfEutopia.1950
2. CentralGoods&.ServicesAct,2017
3. StateGoods&ServicesAct,2017
4. Intra-StateGoods&ServicesAct,2017
"'EBLINKS:
1. http://www.manupatra.com
2. ht.t:p://www.Eutopiankanoon.com
3. http://lexisnexis.com
4. .http://www.lawvcrsclubEuto2in.com
5. http://www.westlaw..com
6. hllp://www.lnwindia.com
MEMORIALONTHEBEHALFOrRESPONDENT Page4
STATEMENTOFJURISDICTION
The Respondent humbly submits this memorandum filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
thiscourt.hasjurisdictionofwrit petition t.olry and entertain thiscaseunder Article 32.1ofthe
constitution of Eutopia.
1
ArticleJlInThe ConsUtutlonOfEucopl111949'
32.Remediesforenforc-emenlofrightsconferredbyI.hisPart
(I)The rightto move lhe SupremeCourtby appropriateproceedingsfor lheenforcementof lhe rightsconferredby this Part is
guaranteed
(2) TheSupreme Courtsball havepower to issuedi:rections or orders or writs, including writs inthe nnturc of habeas
corpus. rnandamus,.prohibition. quo warrunto1111dccr1ioi.1ri, whichever may beappropriate,for Lhe enforcement of any
oflhe righls conferred by this Part
(3) Wi1hou1prcjudici:'lo lhc powersconfcrr,ed on theSupreme Courtbyclause (I) and ( 2 ).Parliament may by law
empower any othi::rcourt lo exercise within the local .limjts of itsjurisdjction all orany ofthe powersexercisoblcby tbe
Supreme Courtunder clause ( 2 )
(4) Therightguarnnlccdbyihisarticleshallnotbe suspendedcxccplas otl1crwisc·providedforby tl1isConstitution
II.JLUNATIONALMOOTCOURTCOMPETITION-2018
STATEMENTOFFACTS
l.That the Republic of Eutopia,got its i.ndependencein the year 1947 and its constitutjonwas
fomrnlJy enactedjn theyear 1950 by the nameofConstin1tion ofEutopia, l950 ('Constih1tion"),
onaverysimilarlinestotheConstitutionofEulopia,1950.TheConstitutiongrantedseveral
fundamentalrightstothe citizens ofEutopia.Further,to strengthen thenation'seconomic
developmen1,the government ofEutopia hadinplaceitssystemoftaxation which\.Vas athreetier
federalstructurecons.istingofthe central government,the stategovernmentandthelocalbodies.
\Viththechanges inthetaxstrucn1reacross tl1eglobe,thestateofEutopiainordertoremovetbe
cascading effect of theindirecttaxes, soughttoreformits existingindirecttax structure. After
severaldeliberationsand discussjonsoverthe years,theRepublic of Eutopia, on July 0l,2017 launcheda
new tax regime, havingendedavariety ofcentral and state imposed indirect taxes.The
legalframeworkofEutopiaissimilartothatofunionofEutopia.
2. That the Central Government of Eutopia, introduced this new tax regune wit11 much
grandiloquence, and claims to be a milestone in economic revolution. The newly developed tax
slructure was a four set of enactments i.e.Central GST Act, 2017;[ntegratcdGST Act. 2017
Union Territory GST Act, 2017 and GST (Compensation to States) Act. 2017 (he-reinafler
collectivelyrcfcm!dtoas"GSTAct").Asinglewindowlaxwasthereforeimposedunderthennme
ofGoods and Services Tax (''GST'). The .introduction and injectionof OST could be done only
throughamendinga number ofprovisions oftheConstitution,asit purportedtoaffect theexisting
distribution ofrevenuebetweenthe Centreandthe states andtherebyimpactingthefederalsetup.
ThelaxregimeofGSTbeingknowntonone,hasbeenapprehendedskepticallyfortherealimpact
oneconomy,commonmasses,businessfraternityandstatecouldnotbepreciselyprofessedby any economist.
3. ThateversincetheimpositionofGST,anumberofpehtionsincludingthoseintheformof
PublicInterestLitigations("PILs")havebeenfiledinvariousHighCourtsandtheSupremeCourt
MEMORIAlONTHE BEHALFOFRESPONDENT Page6

IIJLUNATIONALMOOTCOURTCOMPETITJON-2018
ofEutopia.ThesePlLs/WritPetitions,seektochallengethevalidityoftheGSTActandthe
Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2017, on a variety of grounds. Confused,
perplexed, baffled assessees have nowhere 10go, to seek redressal of their grievance. The tax
practitioners. ch;rrtcred accountants, comp:my secrctnries and government authorities nre also
cluelessaboutalotofissucs.Theirlastresortbcingjudicialremedy,theyhave111ovcdtothehigher
courtsfortheredressaloftheirgrievance.TheSupremeCourt,therefore,consideringthegravity
ofunrestandfmstrationempathizedwithpeopleofEutopiaand hasonitsownmotion,transferred
thecasespendinginlhehighcourt'sonsimilarquest.ionsoflaw,toitself,usingitspo\.ver under Article
139.Aof theConstitution.Interestingly.even some of thestateshavefiledpeti.tions Lrnder the original
jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution. complaining
ofambiguity and violation of thefederalsetup.
4. Thatvarious associationsof tradersinrespectiveitems have challenged the constitutionality of

theGSTActontheground ofbeingabridgement oftheArticle 14oftheConstitution.Tbey base
theircontentiononthefactthatvariousitemslikepetroleum, liquoretc.have beenleftoutofthe
purview of GST on arbitrary grounds. These traders also grieve tbat they still being under earlier
VATandexciseregime,havetopaydifferentrat·esoftaxesLmderdifferentstates.Theexemption to such
commodities has been alleged to be arbitrary. Secondly, it is also alleged that such a differential
treatment is further agonize,d vhen the states chargeVAT on such commodities as per
1
theirowndiscretionhavingnouniformityatallandtherebybeingagainst theveryobjectofGST
i.e.havingaunifonnpriceanduniformtaxbaseforallthegoodsinallthestates.
5. ThatsomeconsumerassociationshavealsofiledPILsagainsttheGST,claimingi.ttobeagainst
consumer benefitandpublicinterest.Itisalleged thattheselection ofcommoditiesandimposing
aparticularrateoftaxation011themhasbeendoneirrationally,unreasonablyandarbitrarily.Some
haveeven gone to the extent of saying that such classification of tax baseand goods under such
differential tax slabs has been done to favor certain industria]jsts close tothe incumbent
government. Manyitemsof basic 11ecessitieswbjchare essential forbaresurvival have been
slapped,;i,rithhigberrateoftaxation, whereasmanyuseless/luxuriousgoodshavebeenoffereda lower
taxrate.Therefore, some havealleged that GSTtoviolativeof not onlyArticl.e 14ofthe
Constih1tionbutalsoArticle21 oftheConstitutionasbeing abridgmentof lifeand liberty.
6. Thatone of the biggestreasons behind GST notbeing digested by the business class inEutopia
is that it has been introducedwithout properanddue preparation. Alongwith introductionof OST,
thegovernmenthasalsoclaimedtoscrapthepaper basedfilingand therogistrntion,payment,
filingand return being doneonly through electronic meansandinternet.Itisallegedthatanation
where basic necessities and a square meal is h.irdly available cannot be expectedto compulsorily
havecomputersand internet.Also,theGST re,gimehasburdened an unendingand unreasonable task
of:filing work (37 filings in a year), which are vexatious, baffl.ing and tiresome. Previ.ously
underVATregime, thetraderhadtodothefilingonlyo:nce ina year.In tliecun-ent regime,afiling is
required every month.The burden of t:he traders gets heavier and worsened when despite trying well
in timepenalties is being imposed on them due to poor websites and server problems.The
tradershavetopaypenaltiesfornofaultsoftheirown.Thetaxpractitionersjnsteadoflending
themahelpinghandhave themselvescriedfoul. The filingsandotherfonnalitiesunderGST and
thecompliancerequiredunderit isallegedtorequirearesourcetobeallocatedforitseparately, in addition to
the respective business. GST has been framed in sucha way thateven medium sized companies are
struggling to keep up the rules, diverting resources thatcould have been devotedto
productiveactivity.Governmenthasintroducedunnecessarilycomplexityintowhatshouldhave
beenthesimplestoflaws.
7. ThatGSTalsoaimsandclaimstobringthesmall.ertradersintota:xnet,butnotthewayitshould.
Theyare being forced in thesystem bythe biggest customers in thesupply chain;othc1wisc they
maylosebusinesstothosewhoarepartofthesystemand whosepaymentsthecustomercanclaim as
refunds. However, such refunds are notmadebythegovernment in timeandarcdelayed for
months.Thisraisestheirworkingcapitalneeds.increasingcostandreducingcompetitiveness.So
astoavail thecredit.even thesmallest of traderswanttobuyfromGSTregistered wholesalers.
However,theunorganizedsectorlikefarmersfromvillagesetc.isnotregisteredunderGST
network and thusshallbeabig looser in thesystem.Apparentlytheir Livelihoodisfettered by the system.
8. That moreover, inthe previous regimemanufacturers were not required tocomplywith excise
rule, if the turnover is below 5 crore.With merging into GST, they have to register i□casethe
turnover crossed the lint.it of20 lakhsunderGST,againcreating problem onsmallbusiness
holders.Theabovementionedproblemsintherespectiveparagraphshavebeenpleadedto
Q? ScannedwithOKENScanner
challenge the constitutionalityoftheGST Act andtheCo11stitution.(OneHundred andFirst

Amendment) Act,2017.asbeing in violationof many fundamental rightsand theconstitutional
norms.
9. That the GST Act is also challengedon the grounds of vagueness and excessive delegation, in
derogation of theConstitutional norms. Forinstance,Section 171 of1hc CentralGST Act (and the
correspondingprovisionsofthestaleGSTActscreatestheobligationonbusinessestopassonthe
recjpientanyreductioninrateofta.x orthebenefitofinputtaxcreditbywayofcommensurate
reductioninprices.Thefullguidanceofwhatconstitutesacommensuratereducti.onwhatarethe
parametersyouwouldgoby.mitigatingfactors,checkandbalanceprovisionsamongothersruled
tobeintheCentralGSTActitself.Inthecurrentfom1,theanti-profiteeringrulesgiveeverything
amiss.Theimpugnedsection,ineffect,castsadutyonacommitteeofbureaucrats whoshallbe
theanti-profiteeringautbority, whowillinturn decide usingtheirown discretion what
commensurate reduction is.This isalleged to bedelegationtooexcessiveonthe bureaucrats.A
penaltyalsocan be imposed by such discretion, which mayevenamount to canceIJa.tion of
registration, an imposition disproportionate with the OSTActand that too without checks and
balances.
10. That the GST Act and its implementation bave also been challenged as being against good
governance and public trust. Accordingto Reserve Bank of Eutopia, "the implementationofthe
GST so far also appears to have bad an adverse impact, rendering prospects for the manufacturing
sector inuncertainin the short term. Thismayfurtherdelay the revival ofinvestment activity,
whichis alreadyhamperedby stressedbalancesheetsofbanks andcorporate".
tl.That major follout of GST is that the taxslnb imposed is non-condl1civcto tl1e recydc-
1
waste'industryandthereforeunfavorabletoenvironmentalconcerns.Thetaximposedonplasticwaste is
12%.while that on glass waste is 18%. This shall ultimately discourage people from buying
recycledgoods.Anotherrepercussionof suchtaxrate 1sthatthe ragpickersandtJ1e unorganized
laborsectorshallbebadlyhitandlosetheirlivelihood.AfewNGOshaveinthisconcernfiled
PILsbeforetheSupremeCourtofEutopia.
12. That a fewstates seem discontentwith the idea of GST itselfandbase their argument that it
seekstousurptheautonomyandindependenceofthestatestoagreatextentandtherebycausing
Q?ScannedwithOKENScanner
aimbalanceinthe federalstruchire.Havingassumedfederalstrncn1reoftheConstitutionas a
basicfeatureoftheConstitution,theyhavechallengedtheConstitution(OneHundredandFirst
Arnendment) Act, 2017 itself.
13.Thatthe Chief Justice ofEutopia, in the lightof seriousness oftbe issuesiuvolvedandthatthe

issuesalsopertaintotheinterpretationoftheConstitutionhasconstituteda benchof5judges to hear
thematterinthecaseof"Associationof TradersandOthersve:rsusUnionofEutopia."
MEMORJALONTHEBEHALFOFRESPONDENT Page10
IIJLUNATIONALMOOTCOURTCOl\fi>ETITION-2018
ISSUESRAISED
ill.11.tl
Whetherexemptionorcertaingood; outorthepurvieworGSTisgroundedonsomereasonable
cl;issificationorisarbitrnryinnatureundtherefore unconstitutionol?
.w.uul
WhetherGSTActpaveswayforexcessivedelegationofpowers &isthereforeunconstitutional?
Issue Ill
\VbelherConstitution (OneHundred and First Amendment) Act,2017is against thefederal setupof the
Eutopia and is therefore unconstitutional?
MEMORIALONTHEBEHALFOFRESPONDEN Page 11
T
Facebook®
FindWhatYou're VisitSite
Looking For
IIJLUNATIONALl\iOOTCOURTCOMPETITJON-2018
ISSUESRAISED
IssueI
\Vhether exemption ofcertain goodsoutof thepurview ofGSTisgroundedonsomereasonable
classification orisarbitrary in nature andtherefore unconstitutional?
Issuen
Whether GSTActpaves,\ayforexcessivedelegationofpowers&isthereforeunconstitutional?
rssuqrn
WhetherConstitution(OneHundred andFirstAmendment)Act2017isagainstthefederalsetup
oftheEutopiaandisthereforeunconstitutional?
SIJMMARY=O[ARGIJMETS
IssueI
,vhetherexemptionofcertaingoodsoutofthepurviewofGSTisgroundedon
some reasonabledassificationorisarbitraryinnatureandthereforeunconstitutional?
Itishumblysubmittedonthebehalfofrespondentthattheexemptionofcertaingoodsandservices out of
the preview of GST is founded on reasonable classification provided under Artidc l4 the Constitution
ofEutopia and this exemption bas passed the test of reasonable classificationalso
providedundersameArtjcJe14ofthesameconstitutionandthereisnotarbitraryand
unconstitutional
Issue2
\VbetherGSTActpaveswayforexcessh·edelegationofpm,·ers&istherefore
unconstitutionnI?
Itis humbly submitted onbehalf of the respondentthattbe power delegatedunder section171 of

thecentral GST Actisapennissible delegation,vhich means thosepowers whichcan bedelegated
byparliamentcomeintothepreviewoftheDoctrineofpennissiblclimits.
Delegated delegation is also known asbye laws andthe power tomake •bye-laws'is conferredon
locnlauthoritiesandstatutoryorotherundertakings'forregulatingtheconduct ofpersons within their
areas or resorting to their undertakjng".If the rules and regulations are also made under the
enablingAct.thebye-lawsaregenerallymadesubordinatetothem.
Issue3
"'hethcrConstitution(OneHundrednndFirstAmendment)Ad,:2017isPgainstthe
federalsetupoftheEutopiaamdisthereforeunconstitutiomal?
His humbly submittedbefore theHon'ble Courtthat the (one hundredandfirst amcndment)Act
20l7isnotagainsttheFederalsetupofEutopia.Whenweconsideredthedebateonthefederal
MEMORIALONTHEBEHALFOFRESPONDENT Page 12
IIJLUNATIONALMOOTCOURTCOMPETITJON-2018
structureoftbeEutopiathen therewasdifferentviewsofdifferent scholars andjuristsanddrafters of

the Euopian Constitution.
ThefederalisminEutopia-SirIvorJenningswasofthe v.iewthatEutopiahasafedcrati.onwithn strong

centralizing policy.
[ntheotherwords,orD.DBasutheconstitutionofEutopiaisneitherpurelyfederalnorunitary,
butitisacombination ofboth.Hisoftendefinedtobequasi-federalin Nature.
JI JLU NATIONALMOOTCOURTCOMPETITION..2018
eLEADlNGSlARGUMENISADVANCED
ls.sue.1
\VhetherexemptionofcertaingoodsoutofthepurviewofGSTisgroundedonsome
reasonableclnssifkntlonorisnrbltrary innaturen11dthereforeunconstitutional?
It is humbly submitted on lhe behalf of respondentthal the exemptionofcertaingoodsand services out

of the preview of GST is founded on reasonabledassification provided under Article 141he
ConstilutionofEutopiaandthisexemptionhaspassedthetestofreasonableclassificationalso
provided under same Artid.e 14 of the same constitution and there is not arbitrary and
unconstitutional.
Test ofReasonableCfassification
While Articl.e 13 forbids class 1.egisl.ation it does not forbidrreasonablc cJassification of persons,
objectsand transaclions bytheparl.iame11t forthepurposeofachie·vingspecificends. But
classificationmustnotbe"arbitrary,artificialorevasive."Itmustalwaysrestuponsomerealand
substantialdistinctionbear.ing a just andreasonablerelationtothe objectsoughtto be achievedby
thelegislation.AccordingtotheEutopianSupremeCourt,classificationtobereasonablemust
fulfilthefollowingtwoconditions:
SaurabhChaudharlvUrtJonorEutopla2
Firstlytheclassificationmustbefoundedontheintelligibledifferentiawhichdistinguishespersons
orthingthataregroupedtogetherfromothers leftoutofthegroup.
Secondlythedifferentiamusthavearatfonalrelationtotheobjectsoughttobeachievedbythe
net.
Thedifferentiawhichisthebasisoftheclassificationandtheobjectoftheactaretwodistinct
things.Wl1alis necessaryisthat there must benexusbet\veenthebasisofclassificationandthe
2
AIR.20O4SC22l2
II JLUNATIONALMOOTCOURTCOMPETITION-2018-
object of the act which makes the classification. It is only when there is no reasonablebasis for a
classification that legislation making such classification may be declared discriminatory.Thus the
legislature mayfix theageatwhich persons shall bedeemed competent tocontract between
themselvesbutnoonewillclaimthatcompetency.Nocontractcanbemadetode_penduponthe
statureorcolourofthehair.Suchaclassificationwjllbearbitrary.
The truemeaning and scopeof theright toequality[Article14in Eutopia]havebeenexplainedin anumber

of cases by the Eutopian Supreme Court. Theprnpositions laid clown inRamKrishna
Dairriov.TE.nddkar3casestill holdgood governing a valid classificationndareas follows.
l.AI.awmaybe constitutional eventhoughitrelatesto a singleindividualif on accountof somespecial

circumstances or reasons applicableto him and not applicable to others, that single
individual may be treated as a class by itself.
2.Thereisnlwayspresumptionin favourofthe constitutionalityof a statuteandthe burden
isuponhimwhoattacksittoshow1hatlherehasbeen acleartransgression ofconstitutional
principles.
3. Thepresumption may be rebuttedincertaincasesbyshowingthat onthefactofthe statue,
thereisnoclassificationand no difference peculiar toany individualorclassand not
applicable toany otherindividual orclass, andyetthe law hits onlya particular individual or
class.
4. lt must be assumed that Legislature correctly understands and appreciates the need of its
own people that their laws aredirectedto problemmademanifestby experience and that its
discrimination are based on ade,quate grounds.
5. Inordertosustainthe presumption of constitutionality the courtmay takeinto
consjderationmatersofcommon knowledge,mattersofreport,thehistory ofthetimesand
mayassllme every state of facts which can be conceived existing atthelime ofthe
legislation.
6. Thusthelegislationisfreetorecognizedegreesofharmandmayconfineitsrestrictionto
thosecaseswheretheneedisdeemedtobethedearest.
7. \Vhile good faith and knowledge of theexisting conditions on the part ofa legislatureare
tobe presumed,ifthere is nothing o□thefaceofthelaworthesurrounding circumstances
3
1958AIR.538,1959SCR279
brougllttothenoticeofthecourtonwhichtheclassificationmayreasonablyberegarded
asbased,thepresumptionofconstitutionalitycannotbecarriedtotheextentalwaysthat there
must besome undisclosed and unknown reason for subjecting certain individuals or
corporationto be hostile ordiscrirninnting legislaLion
8. Theclassificationmnybemadeondifferentbasese.g.geographicaloraccordingtoobject
oroccupati.onorthelike.
9. Theclassifi.cationmadebythelegislatureneednotbescientificallyperfect.orlogically
complete.Malhematicalnicetyandperfectequalityarenotrequired. Equality before the law
does not require mnthematical equality of all persons in all
circumstances.Equaltr,eatmentdoesnotmeanidenticaltreatment.Similarlynoti.dentity of
treatmentis enough.
I0. Therecanbediscriminationbothinthesubstantiveaswellastheprocedurallaw.Article
14appliestoboth.Iftheclassificationsatisfiesthetestlaiddown in theabovepropositions, the
law will be declared constitutional.Thequestion whether aclassification is reasonable
andproperandnotmusthowever,bejudgedmoreoncommonsenselhan onlegalsubtitles.
As,it is3pparentthat Goods and ServicesTax (GST) is the biggestand substantial indirect ti:'lx
refonn since 1947. The main idea ofGST is to replace existing tnxes like v.ilue-addedtax,excise
duty,servicetaxandsalestax.Itwill beleviedonmanufacturesaleandconsumptionofgoodsand
services.GSTisexpected loaddressthecascadin,geffectoftheexi.stingtaxstrnctureandresulti11 uniting
tbe country economically.
TaxessubsumedunderCGST
► ExciseDuty
► MedicalExcise
► CVD
.,.ServiceTax
► CESSES
► SAD
► SURCHARGES
MEMORIALUNTHEBEHALFOFRESPONDENT Page16
IIJLUNATIONALl\100TCOURTCOMPETITION-2018
TaxessubsumedunderSGST
► VATISalesTax
► EntryTaxIContract/LBT
► PurchaseTax
► luxury Tax
Entertainment Tax
.,.,Stateccsscs&Surcharges
.,.,TaxesonLotte.ry,battingandGambling
TaxesnotsubsumedunderGST
, BasicCustomDuties
, ExciseonLiquor
Property Tax
► Stamp Duty
► Tax011Sale/ConsumptionofElectricity
ProductsnotcoveredunderGST
► PetroleumCrude
► MotorSpir1t(Petrol)
► HighSpeedDiesel
, NaturalGas
,,.,AviationTurbineFuel
► Liquor
MainfeahuesofGoods &S-enicesTaxAd-
l)Taxableevent-Taxonsupplyofgoods and services rather than manufacture /production of

goods provision of services or sale ofgoods.
MEM0RJALONTHEBEHALFOFRESPONDENT Page17
UJLUNATIONALMOOTCOURTCOMPETTTION-2018
2) DeterminationofNatureofSupply-lnlra-statcsupplyofgoodsandsericeswheretbclocation
ofthesupplierandtheplaceofsupplyareinthesamestate.
Inter-statesupplyofgoodsorservices-where the locationofthesupplierandthep1ace of
supplyareindifferentstate.
3) Liability to pay-Liabilitytopaytaxarisesonl.ywhenthetaxablepersoncrossestheexemption
threshold.
4) CompositionScheme-Provisionforlevy of taxonfixedrateonaggregateturnoveruploa
prescribedlimitationinafinal year.
5) TimeandValueof supply-The timeof supply of goods or serviceswithfollowingbeing cmcial
detenrunation with certain exemptions.
• Dateonwhichsupplierissuesinvoice.
• Dateonwhichsupplierrevkwthepayment.
• Taxisbeingperiodontenninntionvalueofsupply.
6) InputTaxCredit-ITCisavailableinrespectoftaxespaidonanysupplyofgoodsorservices usedor
intendedto be used in the course.
7) Regi:strati.on-PAN based registrationrequired to beobtained foreachstatefrom where taxab]e
supplies or being made.
8) Returns-normaltax-payers,compositionstax-payers,casualcax.-payers,inputservice
distributorsfileseparateelectronicretumwithdifferentcutoffdates.
AnnualreturntobefiJedby31stDecemberofthefollowingfinalyearalongwitha----------------
statement.
9) Payment-SystemofelectroniccashledgerandelectronicITCledger.
Taxcanbedepositedbyintemetbanking,NEFT/RTGS,Debit/Creditcard,andovertbe
counter.
I0) Refund- Time l.imit for refundoftax orinterestis t,,oyears.Refundtobe grantedwith.in60 days from
lhe date of receipt ofcompleteapplication.
11) AssessmentandAudit-Self-assessmentoftaxprovisionsforassessmentofnon-filers,
unregistered person and summary assessment in certain cases.
Provisionsforprovisionalassessmentonrequestoftaxableperson tobefinalizedinsix months..
MBMORIALONTHEBEHALFOFRESPONDENT Page18
Audit tobeconducted althe placeofbusinessoftJ1e taxablepersonor at tbeofficeoftaxauthoriti.es after

prior intimation to taxable person.
Audittobecompletedwithin3months.
12) DemandAdjudicationordertobeissuedwithin3/5yearsoffilingofannualreh1m.
13) Powersofofficers and tax-payers right to appeal- Officers tohave power ofsearch and seizure
with inbuilt safeguards.
Restrictedpowertoarrestandforprosecution. Appeal
to Supreme Court.
ObjectivesofGoodsandServicesAct-
• GST would help to eliminate the cascading effects ofproduction and distributioncostof
goods and services.
• GSTwouldeliminatethemultiplicityoftheindirecttaxati.onandstreamlineofallindirect taxes,
whichwould be beneficial for manufacture andultimate consumer.
• GSTwouldbeabletocoveralltheshortcoming ofexistingVATsystem.
• Incidenceoftaxfailsondominatesproduction.
• Thereshouldbenoexportoftaxescrosstaxingjurisdiction.
• Eutopia□marketshouldbeintegratesi.ntosinglecommonmarket.
• Henhancesthecauseofcooperativefederalism.
AdvantagesofGoodsandServiceTaxAcf-
IntroductionofaGSTisverymuchessentialintl1eemergingenvironmentoftheEutopian economy.
IIJLUNATIONALMOOTCOURTCOMPETITION--2018
• Thereisno doubtthatinproductionanddistributionof goods, servicesandincreasinglyused or

consumed..Separate taxes for goods and services, which is the present taxation system, requires
division of transaction values into value of goods and services forlaxation, leading to greater
comp!ications, administration, includingcomplaincosts.In theGST system, where all
thetaxesareintegrated,itwouldmorepossiblethetaxationburdentobesplitequitably ben-veen
manufacturing and services.
• GSTwill beleviedonlyat thefinaldistribution onconsumption wasteonVATprincipleand not at
variouspoints(frommanufacturing to retail outlets).Thiswill help inremaining economic
distributions and bring amount development ofacommon nationa] market.
• ItwillalsobeJptobuildapermanentandcom1ptionfreetaxadministration.
• Possible reduc1ioninprjces-duetofullandseamlesscredit, manufacturersortraders donot
havetoincludetaxesasapartoftheircostof production,whichisaverybigreasontosaythat
,vecanseeareductioninprices.
• Increasein GovemmentRevenue- TI1is might seems lobe Wtle vague. However, even at the tjme
of introductionof VAT, the public revenues actually went up instead of falling because
manypeopl.eresortedtopayingtaxes.However,thegovernmentmaywishtointroduceGST at a revenue
neutral rate, in which case the revenues might not see a significant increase in the short run.
• Lesscomplainsand procedural cost-Insteadofmaintainingbigrecords,returnsandreporting
Ulldervariousdifferentstatutes,allassesseswiHfindcomfortableunderGSTas thecomplains cost
willbe reduced.
• Push to exports-With fallin production costindomestic market,the competitivenessof
Eutopiangoodsin.intemati.onal marketwil.lincrease. This bodeswellfor exporters,who
compete with global manufacturers.
• Information Technologyenabling Services-Theproposed GTrate under tl1eI.T industry isnot yet
divided. While the discussed combined rate of GST for the product in 27%. According to
proposed GST, if the software is lransferr,ed through electronic form, it would be regarded as
service (inteUectual.property), and if i.t i.s transferredthrough media or any other tangible
property, then it shouldbe treated as goods.
• InfrastructureSector- TheEutopianinfrastnicturesector largelycomprises,power,road, port
andtheindirect tax levy isdifferentandunique foreachofthem andthiscomplex in nature.
IIJLUNATIONALMOOT,COURTCOMPE·TITION-2018
\ViththeimplicationofGST,themultiplicityofthetaxeswillberemovedanditwould increasethe tax
ways withcontinuationof exempti.on andconcessionfornationalinterest.
• ImpactonsmallEnterprises-lnthesmallscale enterprisestherearethreecategories:
I) ThosebelowthresholdneednottoregisterfortheGST.
2) Thosebetweenthresholdandcompositionturnoverwi11havetheoptiontopaytumbasedtax.
3) ThoseabovethresholdlimitwillneedtobewithinframeworkofGST.Monufocturerstraders
willhavetopnylesslaxwiththeimplicati.onofGST.
lssu.e2
\Vhcthcr GST Act paves wny for c.x.ccssivc delegation of p,o,\·crs &is thcr,cforc
unconstltuti01ml?
Itisbumblysubmittedon behalfoftherespondentthatthepowerdelegated undersection17l of

thecentral GST Actisa permissible delegationwhic.hmeansthosepowers whichcanbedelega.ted
byparliamentcome into the previewofthe Doctrineof permissiblelimits.
Delegated delegationisalso known asbye lawsandthe po,verlomake 'byCLlaws•isconferredon local

authorities and statutory or otherundertakings"for regulating the conduct of persons within
theirareas or resorting to their undertaking". If the rules and regulations are also made under the
enabling Act,thebye-laws are generallymadesubordinatetothem.
ApartfromtbepureadministrativefunctionexecutivealsoperformsJegislativeandthejudicial
function a[so.The doctrine of pennissible limitstalks about those limitations ofa legislation to
which the power can be delegated.
Aswell as the power delegatedundersection 17l of thisAct necessary forfulfillment of object

whichIsprov.idedunderAct.theclearprinciplementionandofferedsufficientguidancesoit would
not theexcessive delegation.
HARISHAKARBAGLAVISSTATEOFMADHYAPRADESH4
InthiscasetheSupremeCourtwassatisfiedthatitlaidaclearprincipleandofferedsufficient
guidance.asthesectionprovidedthatthepowerconferred\herein.wastobeexercised"for
maintain or increasing supplies of ony essential commodity or for securing their equitab1e
distribution and availabilityat fair prices.
So the power provided under theActis necessaryforfairnessand withoutbye- lawsthe

administrativeauthoritynotabletoworkproperly,itisalsocomeintoprevieworpermissible
limjtssohowcanwesaythatitisexcessivedel.egation.Thepower ofappointmentofexamination
authoritymhandofcentralgovernmentnotinhandofbureaucracy.
TheGSTlawcontainsaun.igueprovisiononanti-profiteeringmeasureasadeterrentfortradeand
indllstry to enjoy unjust enrichmentin terms of profit arising oul or implementation of goods and
services Tax inEutopiaLe.,antimprofiteeri.ng measure would obligatethebusinesstopass onthe
costbenefitarisingoutofGSTimplementationtotheircustomers.
The object of Anti-Profocering measure section 171 provides that it is mandatory lo pass on tbe
benefit due to reduction in rate of tax or from input tax. credit to the consumer by way of
commensuratereduction in prices.
.., 19.54,AIR465,1955SCR313
Q? ScannedwithOKENScanner
DJLUNATIONALMOOTCOURTCOMPETITION-2018
The power hasbeengivenlocm,tralGovt.toconstitutean aumhoritytooversee whether the
commensuratebenefitofallowanceofinputtaxcredit: orreductioni□thetax rates havebeen passed on to
the final customers.
INKISHANPRAKASHSHARl\fAVISUNIONOFEUTOPIA5
TheSupreme Court laid down the testofconstitutional limit ofdelegated legislation. TheSupreme
Courtin this case held that the legislature must setthe limitsof the power delegatedbydeclaring the
policy of the lawa□d bylayi□g downstandardsforguidance of those onwhomthe powerto
execute the law isconfon·ed. Thus; the question iswhether any particular legislation suffers from
excessivedelegationandinascertainingtbesame,theprO\isions ofthe statueincluding its preamble.and
the facts and circmnstances in tJ1e background of which the statute is,enacted.The history
oflhelegislation,the comheldplexity of the problemswhicha modemstatehas to face, will
havetobetakennoteof and if,onaliberal construction given t.oastatute,a legislativepolicy and
guidelines for its execution arc brought out.
While thegovernment canjustify various anti-profil.eeringmeasures based onsocialist principles, lhe

rules and methodologyneed to be clearly stated.
Nearly70yearsafterB.R.Ambedkar and K.I.Shahdebatedover whetherthe Eutopian Constitution

shouldincludethe word•socialist'-theformer was in favorofa society beingorganised by tbepeople
ofEutopia, according to thetime and circumstances anti-profiteering provisions presentinthe
country'splan to overhaula brokentax system remind us of this very debate.
Theprimary objectiveof the goods and services lax (GST) is to remove, the cascading effect of
existing taxes, whichis tax ontax.The coreprinciple of the GST is based onthefactthatthe tax
onanyinputorinputservice utilizeddur.ingtJ1eprocessofdevelopingaproduct oraservicewould
havetobeoffsetagainstthesubsequentoulputtaxpaid.Theseamlesscreditsystembasbeen
fommlated keeping theconsumer in mind and removes inefficiencies in thesupplychainhowever,
whatifan entityinthesupplychain forin.stance,awho]esaler,decides totakebenefitorareduced tax rate
country the GSTand notpass onsuch benefit toa consumer by hikingup hisprofir?
2001(3),TMll1018SC
MEMORJALONTHEBEHALFOFRESPONDENT Page23
IlJLUNATIONALMOOTCOURTCOMPETITION-2018
Tocountersuchunduebenefit,theGovernmentinsertedsection171intothecentralGoodsand
servicesTaxAct.Section171oftheCOSTspecifiesthatanybenefitavailed throughextra input
taxcreditorareductioninrnteoftaxonanysupplyofgoodsorserviceshastobepassedontothe consumer
commensurately.
[n Eutopia INC'S primary objection to anti profiteering lies around the fact that it adds an
additional compliance burden and that more importantly,a reduction in rate of taxes of input or
inputservicesneednotnecessarilyresultinaproportionatereductioninthefinalpriceofaprodllct or
service.
In GARE\\'AL V/S STATE OF Punjab"Section 3 of the all Eutopia Services Act, 1951,which
gave power to the central Governmentto frame rules for the regulation or recnlitment and fue
condition ofservice was upheld. In thiscase, thecourt foundthepolicy and guidance ofthe Act in
the then existing mies which ,vere continued by the Act, although power was given to vary or
amendthenbynowrulesframedundertheAct. ]twasheldthattheprocedureprescribedinthe
Actformakingofrulesthattheyweretobelaidonthetableofparliamentbeforetheycouldcome in'to
force a□d were open to modificationon a motion madein parliament, was sufficient control over the
delegilteandthe Actdidnot suffer fromexcessivedelegation.
INBANARSTDASVISSTATEOFMADHYAPRADESH.7
Itwassaidthat nltllm1ghthe powertota.x isawell-recognizedlegislativepower,ample lal'itude

hasbeenallowedtothelegislaturetoleavetoadelegatethepower toworkout todetailsofatax
policy.lnupholdingapowerdelegatedtothestalegovernmentforamcnclingtheschedulerelating
toex.emptionsinasalestaxlcgislationjusticeVenkntarm1urnlynrobserved:
"Now theauthorities areclearthatit isnot unconstitutionalforthe legislatureloleaveittothe

executive todetermine detailsrelating tothe workingof taxation laws,suchas theselection of
persons on whom1he tax is to be laidthe rate atwhichit is to be chargedin respect of different classes
of goods andthe like."
6
1956,SC512
7
1958SC,909,P.913
MEMORIALONTHEBEHAL.FOFRESPONDENT Page24
IIJLUNATIONALMOOTCOURTCQ,MPETITIQN...2018
ls.sue3
Whether Constlt11tJ011 (OneHu11drednndFirst Amendment}Act, 2017Isagainst the

federal setup of the Eutopiaandis thereforetmconstitutional?
Itis humbly submitted beforethe Hon'ble Courtthat the(onehundredandfirstamendment)Act.

2017 is not against the Federal set up of Eutopia. Wben we considered the debate on the federa]
structureoftheElltopiathen therewasdifferentviewsofdifferent scholi.lrs andjuristsanddrafters oftbe
Euopian Constitution.
ThefederalisminEutopia-Sir[vorJenningswasoftheview thatEutopia hasafedern.tionwitha strong

centralizing policy.
[nthe otherwords,ofD.DBasutheconstitutionof Eutopiaisneitherpurelyfederalnor unitary,

butitisacombinationof both.Itisoft.endefinedtobequasi-federalinNature.
Nodoubt,Eutopiahasapoliticalandconstitutionalstructurewherefederalfeaturesareevident
.Thereissharingofpower between theCentreand theStatesbuttheConstitution providesCentral
Government with supreme pov.."ers and concentrates administrative and financial pm:,,,ers
completelyin itsbands.InPrakash Karat"Federalism and thepolitical systemin lndia.)Seems
therewassomedeficiencywhichmadetheconstitutionalframerstoincorporatefeatures\Vhich
worked against the federal principle. Reiterating some Central Government's power-sit bas the
powertorecognizethestatesthmugbparlimnenl;Governors appointedby theCentrecanwilhhold
assenttolegishitionpassed bythestate;Parliament canoverride thelegislationspassed bythe
slate;Parliamentcanoverridethelegislationspassedbythestatesforthereasonsofnational
interest;Governorshavearoleint:hefom1atio11ofstategovernment,:mdtheCentre isvested\\ ith
1
theCentralauthority. Fortunately,thereviewing powerofjudiciary ofCentre-State relationexists

asthat in federalfeatureswhi.charecircumscribedwith a built-in unitarycore..(Prakash Karat
"FederalismandthepoliticalS)stemIn India).
"'est BengalV.Unionof India8,thi.s case dealt with the issue of exercise of soverei.gn powers
byLheEutopianstates.TheSupremeCourt inthis caseheld thattheEutopia:nConstitutiondoes not
promote a principle of absolute federalism. The court further outlined four characteristics
highlightingthefactthattheIndian Constin1tionisnota"traditionalfederalConstitulion.
The Elltopia Constitution is a constitution sui generis On one hand , the constitution contains
features whichareofhigh importance:forafederalarrangement ,atthesametimeitcontains
provisionswhichfightfor aslrongCentre.thus.making itquasi-federalinnature.The fact tobe
appreciatedhereistbatthesedualfederalismprovisionsweredeliberatelyincorporatedtobestfit. a
polyglot country like Eutopia.
11
1963AIR,1241,1964SCR(1)371
IIJL OOTCOURT
Th Consti.tutionOneHundredandFi_rslAmndmnlA1,- 17 ringslh iIIwinu11

amnlmcntintheCnriritinfEutopia-
, Thr iuaryp,erofI:rilationofParliamentunderarticle241sno subjectto article

_4
, ArticJ_49hasbeenhangd • thati-f/3rdmajrilrri.;slutini.pa db Rajya abha,
theParliamentwillhavepowerslomak necesm I·w..vilhr pctL
innatinI
int r,t.
, Arrile_5liab namended•fhalparliamenl illhavpowerstomake1,v.srelatedto

GTduringemrgncreriod.
,. rtile2 habeenan,ndedothat.excise du·.onmedici□alandliilprparation\Viii
b mil.ledfrmtilstn Ii·tndwillbsu umdin T.
,. rtiI26.habeenrepealedsonowsrvicetaxisubsumdin T.
,. Arli'I2 wulI mpwerth parli0mcntt makeGTrelatedlavsforinter-stat
trade/•mmrce..
CompensationtofateforReeuueLos-
Fu1ther. tbe amenclmnl alprid clthat Parliam nthall. bla\ . on the recommemfation by rvie
TaxLmcil,l rovideompensati; ntthettesrlofrvnuari·ing oDacountf implemntationf the
and'rvitBrpridf Iiyar.
The• ontobe implemented odsand eivIceTax

) i th•rm nizc in ircct riad
taxesrbuild a unified Indian ta 1ru·ture.
inir_ltaxthatarIvid
urr·ntlandctlected gemmenlIlapowertodecide
bthi.:: unin midslatGvmmnlsin
commodity.thusispricdcliffrently
itswnindir ct•pIi
acrsLilt.Thisi.eentbeincviententf,rtrnd1iJ1vIvdinlntr-statetransactitland
buinnembaedacrmultipletales.TshaUharmonlzall Lhindirclta replacethemwith auniform
GSTrate.Theation •uniformilydi1tilinkdT.
Ithabenargll rand,ver a0ainthatitwillubsumetate.a!ueAddedTax.ntertainme11t

Tax,mralaktax.• u·ian.IEnt(x.Purhastx,Luxurytax.TaxesonLtter.beHi11
M EHALFOFRESPONDEl Pge27
nJL OURTco·PETITIO-2018
andgambling; nd lateceseand surchargsinso faras the rdat to suppl of ood and

srvices . In tl1isway ,venfocal bodis \i11 beaffected byLbG Tandthu, it.allegedly attack
on th. ti d raltructure of our .unt othebtheI O•1 1 Conirution Amndmenl .ttheSixth
hedul l1a b t1ami;111dL 't tta .on
mrtainmnt,ndamu,,nt.par.1.sub-para3.rm,vhp,imvt,iti•au·kth
feder:I .et up of fartpiaut:actua.11itwiII broaden the tax bae.increa e tax complianee. and
reduceeconomic distortionscauedb_imter-statevariationintaxes.Thereisnodoubtthatthe
IrtisfIvying,dutithe111r,altaxbth • tribyIcalbodi.s
mabImInn-ran.parent.
PoUdca.lAutonom'ofthefat
Eventheplitialeg·of the.tatesremainsatplace,;i,ith idual.I T.w111toourfederalstructure. T

vidanImana0dbdirm:.11dmini.tralin.. i:111d·rvi,ce TaxC•T) ntrwuldIvv • 11trnl d
ds and
GST Cou11il\hichi11itbranagen(ofstat nrof ntre.
n ald t•th1.: . lat •rt rnx.t1 lcoholic

liqur for human,consmnption i xmpt from and some certain petroleumprduct are
also exempagi.veninthe foesheet of fac f the ca till the CuniI.deeides n them and
numberdoubtcanbepassdt thefactthatLiquorsalehavealwasledtolargestr enue U
•tin b lat Ing \lith this, th• ap· it ft·it 1 .nratr cnur Ind t nn -
nn - riu•annlb undel''limald.
Coopernth•eFederalism
,nothrticror \Iiihmay di.;;eloptinughneHundrd.,ndFirstomendmentt _oIbrin. s Ul

fidrli.111lhouhlndi·n.tat. h dplitilintg1·alininI.·.with
thintgratinr Prinelyslates in mnia11nin.E Intgnuin,:vatillmiing.Poing
ofTi.sahinjngexamp]efoperativefeder;lhnwhere statescentrebav·ededLheir pwer
I• l , xcmupwiLhingllx.tmlraljze the dram •fnE Eutpi
,ith•nnark g.inha nitini.rityflnian
Page28
IIJL
ALMOOT·COURTCOMPETJTIO -2018
eralism•L knownasmarI -cakefederlism,isa nept ff;deralismin

\.VhiIinmi nal.Lat •'loc.Igo rnmenlintractc prali\el , IIctivc·l t.sole nunn
prnblems. rmhrtha11 making poliie eparatI but moreorIs.equal!r da hingvcrap

Iiyina .. m dominatedbyth Nmi \
errunnl.
9
IGngv/• mithanda• ri• fubeuentAD C.se.mrere thephashabenu"ed
nt.l
inconnectin,ivith other fedmlprgrmsbuild onth o rativefedralim.s Indiatakes
greatpridein de ribin itsIf asthewrid\,largesLd er.tllisdc□i rny i
m aningfulsigniIantlybcaus iti encapulatdi11af ralstructure.Whild 111crac
r )We ntthernajrity pinion , fe •ralim acmmdats& li11k f scial ju·tic.Thienure

harmnmu•fimctiningofntirssticm.
F der Iim • r ultural&-thriic purism havu1vnthcountr •s pliticalsl in realflexibilit.

andthref;r thcapacity I wilhstndtre thughace111modation.Hwevr. ,c minuntionf th
amer quir•nt sim1I fdern.lism but C prative' ontru·ti fcderali111.
Th tatofRajastha11v/ I19,77toit\ivasquotedthatthea,cordinto rnnville ustin.the

thefirst nsri1uentbdy I em·raefrm thstat1 wha'I .H
Birh anuotherha calld··c peratiefedralim".h1.:i • calldtheco11.titulion
'amphibian•if,urcnlilutinrata,entrIgoemmen1whihia1n1hibian·inthens thJincan m\eitheron the fi
dralor11t]1eunila1plan,cording tothneedsfthiluatin
andircumsla11cesfacas'·StateofHnryan•lssblteofPunjab11,1he""rd"Semi-fedL:ral
wause.hamshr srngh"/•statofPunjnb12,thentitutionwasalled '"moreunitary1ha11 fedral...
nder rticle-7 -Th TCoun,iiwill c fthe ninFimmcMiniskr(asChairman)

,thnio.initrftateinhargef R"enuer•lna11er TaLionrany olhr1iniler.
no111inal.dyeahsttgovernmtllthu.enphniingthfactthatstats'aandpininswill bcatredI:andfederalc•neef
lhu:nuyhasbendulprekd.
5
3 .309(19,8)
rn IR1361.1978R,CJ.
II 1QC)'4
Page29
TIJLUNATIO IOOTCOURTCO IPETITIO -2018
T• unii ill bl:madby threeFiunhsmjrit•r Ull:vic. 1: the, ntre

f th lc,l.ndlhe stat lgtbr.hallhvtw*third fthvt t
TheGT uniiwithrcpr.sntnbnfrmbth entreaw11

ulnnindcpcndntbdyinil'sclf.urll11.:r. th,Parliamcm ndt«t .I-risl,tun.:·willhtv1.:the
pwrL mak la\ 11th 1axati11
Ta(rLA ).Alawmad• by
Parliam1;11iinrlationI n• astatelawn T.Thiagainemphasis1..:nth.
df11lwr inab
ugb lh lllrIg crnmnlwillhav.:ih

lusi an
C
finlcr1at trade rc1111111..::re.runpr.kuw11a lntegtcd
mrnndati11 fth T unii.wl1ihi indpndIllbd
andappu1tb
crlappin t·1xcs c:anrb the ta:sstm ofsimpliity and 1ransparn..altr relatiprics in

Iways.nnktaxrdilin°11XfrtdiffiulL.au illlr-tat·ta mptilinandlax
xprtutin resultininquitaler uri:nw.
Thmainaim.fIi alIideralim.nhrindin rliI 3I fth onstitutionisth frc and

unifidm
• prvid firth
yth
aretb ntirelya ignd t
Th ub·tance
fFicalfid·ralimIii:in \ithth.pIiies falll!!v fth
g••ernmenl.
• Ta hining exilmple •fcoperalie federalim In ur federal Lem thIale

andcentrhavpwerloi111110elaxes.Thediviin fsuh taxatin pwr is en inunion ·mdtalel.i..:t
under7thschedule. With th,e spirit•f prativefi derali m.under T .bLhcenLre and .tathav gi
nuptax.tinpwr.Th onslilutin f Eutpiah.s alsbnamnded •crdingl Lb
fondamental reordering offederal ti(:alrelations forthecauseofcommon goodhm:vsthesirenth and
resolve othetideral structure.TheconvrgenceforIllecause of largerpublic god haben mad
underlbe GTregimethe centreandstate\Viiiact ntberecommendation fth OST Council.
Page30
IJJL.
Harrnonizatin ofTLaws acrs1humry:nlitugh,nrc and-ach·ta\I gisl.1ture hav"pa.dlhirwnTdcl.'thy

allad,n theMdel GTlaw draftedjointlybythe Centre'and thetates.
CmmnCompline lechanism- GTN,anon-for-profit,nn-rrovmmnrnl mpan

prrntcd jintlybyth nuralandLalg emmenl, ithe cmm11011 complianceportal andthe
ta·plaershollinlrfacwith all.tata.,.II a ntrLill'ugh thisI rtaL
Jint apaityBuilding fforts -Joint capaityBuildingEffortsbCentreas wellas

arbing rganisd·whreinorl11 1rsl"lim thetrainin fffiersof nuanIsmrebing
cnductedundrauIi r atinalAadem fCust111.,IndirctTa•,e.andN,r
AINhaformedajoiintc mrniucincchSIDI m1ri·ingof 1llr
tateand fficertirovrscin
JointTrade.,areneandIHrahEffirls:ntra1ngwiththestatovernmentfficials habnr anjsine: JLnl Trade

Av,1areness'utreah pr .ramwh r infir t timthffi··,.. rateTa,v,r11s,mmtTr-
dandLhrlakeh1der.rempowem1ent
ofofficerofcentreawelltale:Thu11hTwillbjintlyadmini·1erclbntrandlate
,fornsuringaeofdinbusines,buttheindividualtaxpa1 c,r , illhansingle1mcrfa"·wilh
nlyncTx,ulhriteitherentreortate.
Jint Implementationommittees:lnorder toensuresmooth rolloutofGSTtheGTunii ha,

formdathr,tirtrutur ,:thfficofRvenuretmy.GTimptrncntation
ommittee( tanding ommit1eeand lheraL II
implemntatin f T.rndccd Tinlnia in itconepion.natn't-nlandimplemnt tioni fed
an. amlefralC alimt wrk, in tun, ith thuniquecharaterofEutopia
- ni inDiverity'.
cnomiclnlegration- Tregimethenlire unt willb· m nmark-tanditwillb

mi in.tm-tin f utpia. urpi,a uldbcom neunif,rn1marktwith ml-
tra.nsfir
Tiagrat ampl -prativefil,eralismanditmustbehailedinsteJdof foI mo

firit pi:11,thepath fd lopmentfortheountry.HO\i•verConstitutionstillprvid r mf,r
Page31
DJL LMOOT OMPETITION-2018
ndnn-•tariffbarric.. rtiI3 Puli<mntthp rI i'•st.l'iIfrC

nd ithin. tc fpulieinere 1ilarly .state
renrund • •ft
nidrbk: frc.;dmI
thdistributionofpowerialothcrsomelimitationalsprecntandbUInothin•c□n'texecd thmbit th
utpianntitutinth111;:Hundredru1clfirstAm11mt.:nlt.20l71111hasi••thEenmic lntegrti11 and

wrk11Iftrthebenfil forthenumer·whichispepieofthe nationulLimateluhamndm111nhri□ed Lhnation
eonomand,elfare for Lhe peopl•.of the natin whichifirt priority of an •Gvemmentand an d ne by both it
level of GovernmentthrubCo p ratjvand nstmctieftdernlism. Then,...,h pl
r of Cperatinhasbeen addedwitlii:□thisdiersithroughooperationbetweenentreandtate"'hich
ecnomicallyi.11tegrates EutpiaandtrengthenitsunirysoTheConstinuin(•neHundredandFirsrmendment)ct,
_17isnotOintlhefederIet.upfEulpia11d!bereftre,onstitutiIl,llyvalidin nalure.
PRAYER
Inlhlightffatslatdarumnlad,..rncdandauthrilie'cited,thrIndn! bumly ubmit·thatthHn"blurt

m.1bpleadIadjud,and dirni:si.:dl'hpi.:lil'in.
I)Thatthexmptionof certaingod.andservicesoutofthe 1n11"viewofTisgroundedon smr

anabllasifiatinrilinIaritrnrinnaturandtherFii-edelar·dLbe constitutional in
natureoriticonstitutional· alid.
_)ThatlheGTactiundertheamil&cIefthede!atin•fpwer&1tiscnlitL1tional
va.li<l.
3)Thecontirutiononehundredandftrstamendment)..cl,_o17isnotagainstthefederaletup
ftheElllpiaandistherefore£be I\iUbeaconstitutionallyvalid.
MEMORlALO,THEBEHALFOFRESPODENT Page32
IIJLU
Any othr orderasitdeem·fUintheiJJtr r f r1uit.7.justiceandgood

COil·cfeJCC,
ForThi:Ar fKindn h Pt1tioner hallDutyBmndForever Pra..
AJJohlticlismost1nmblvpra•ed.
CounselfortheRespondut
MEMORIALO Pa 33
11JL PETITION2018
TABI,EOFCONTENIS
FABBRE.1Tl
fNDE THRfTlE
.i}, c·a :s;Cit.d...................................................................................

(iiBokReferred................................................................................
i H, .rruteRferrI.......................................................................................................4
i,_ blink·R·firred...................................................................................................4
TATE -T F T_...............................................................................'-1._
I EDRAl ...........................................................'.....................................................1
MM\R -CE-T...............................................................................................l
PL- DlNGI R r rT ARUNI· T.....................................................................- -J•

l
PR:- ER........................................................................................................................... ·-
Page1

New Doc 06-07-2024 13.11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Doc 06-07-2024 13.11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IIJLUNATIONALMOOTCOURTCOMPETITION-2018

sec Supreme Court Cases

SLP Special LeavePetition

4. Dr.J. N.Pandey,ConstitutionalLawOfEut:opia51sted.2014, CentralLawAgency,

(4) Therightguarnnlccdbyihisarticleshallnotbe suspendedcxccplas otl1crwisc·providedforby tl1isConstitution

MEMORIAlONTHE BEHALFOFRESPONDENT Page6

4. Thatvarious associationsof tradersinrespectiveitems have challenged the constitutionality of

challenge the constitutionalityoftheGST Act andtheCo11stitution.(OneHundred andFirst

13.Thatthe Chief Justice ofEutopia, in the lightof seriousness oftbe issuesiuvolvedandthatthe

Itis humbly submitted onbehalf of the respondentthattbe power delegatedunder section171 of

structureoftbeEutopiathen therewasdifferentviewsofdifferent scholars andjuristsanddrafters of

ThefederalisminEutopia-SirIvorJenningswasofthe v.iewthatEutopiahasafedcrati.onwithn strong

It is humbly submitted on lhe behalf of respondentthal the exemptionofcertaingoodsand services out

The truemeaning and scopeof theright toequality[Article14in Eutopia]havebeenexplainedin anumber

l.AI.awmaybe constitutional eventhoughitrelatesto a singleindividualif on accountof somespecial

l)Taxableevent-Taxonsupplyofgoods and services rather than manufacture /production of

Provisionsforprovisionalassessmentonrequestoftaxableperson tobefinalizedinsix months..

Audit tobeconducted althe placeofbusinessoftJ1e taxablepersonor at tbeofficeoftaxauthoriti.es after

• Thereisno doubtthatinproductionanddistributionof goods, servicesandincreasinglyused or

Itisbumblysubmittedon behalfoftherespondentthatthepowerdelegated undersection17l of

Delegated delegationisalso known asbye lawsandthe po,verlomake 'byCLlaws•isconferredon local

Aswell as the power delegatedundersection 17l of thisAct necessary forfulfillment of object

So the power provided under theActis necessaryforfairnessand withoutbye- lawsthe

While thegovernment canjustify various anti-profil.eeringmeasures based onsocialist principles, lhe

Nearly70yearsafterB.R.Ambedkar and K.I.Shahdebatedover whetherthe Eutopian Constitution

Itwassaidthat nltllm1ghthe powertota.x isawell-recognizedlegislativepower,ample lal'itude

"Now theauthorities areclearthatit isnot unconstitutionalforthe legislatureloleaveittothe

Whether Constlt11tJ011 (OneHu11drednndFirst Amendment}Act, 2017Isagainst the

Itis humbly submitted beforethe Hon'ble Courtthat the(onehundredandfirstamendment)Act.

ThefederalisminEutopia-Sir[vorJenningswasoftheview thatEutopia hasafedern.tionwitha strong

[nthe otherwords,ofD.DBasutheconstitutionof Eutopiaisneitherpurelyfederalnor unitary,

theCentralauthority. Fortunately,thereviewing powerofjudiciary ofCentre-State relationexists

Th Consti.tutionOneHundredandFi_rslAmndmnlA1,- 17 ringslh iIIwinu11

, Thr iuaryp,erofI:rilationofParliamentunderarticle241sno subjectto article

, Arrile_5liab namended•fhalparliamenl illhavpowerstomake1,v.srelatedto

The• ontobe implemented odsand eivIceTax

Ithabenargll rand,ver a0ainthatitwillubsumetate.a!ueAddedTax.ntertainme11t

andgambling; nd lateceseand surchargsinso faras the rdat to suppl of ood and

Eventheplitialeg·of the.tatesremainsatplace,;i,ith idual.I T.w111toourfederalstructure. T

GST Cou11il\hichi11itbranagen(ofstat nrof ntre.

n ald t•th1.: . lat •rt rnx.t1 lcoholic

,nothrticror \Iiihmay di.;;eloptinughneHundrd.,ndFirstomendmentt _oIbrin. s Ul

eralism•L knownasmarI -cakefederlism,isa nept ff;deralismin

prnblems. rmhrtha11 making poliie eparatI but moreorIs.equal!r da hingvcrap

r )We ntthernajrity pinion , fe •ralim acmmdats& li11k f scial ju·tic.Thienure

F der Iim • r ultural&-thriic purism havu1vnthcountr •s pliticalsl in realflexibilit.

Th tatofRajastha11v/ I19,77toit\ivasquotedthatthea,cordinto rnnville ustin.the

nder rticle-7 -Th TCoun,iiwill c fthe ninFimmcMiniskr(asChairman)

T• unii ill bl:madby threeFiunhsmjrit•r Ull:vic. 1: the, ntre

TheGT uniiwithrcpr.sntnbnfrmbth entreaw11

ugb lh lllrIg crnmnlwillhav.:ih

crlappin t·1xcs c:anrb the ta:sstm ofsimpliity and 1ransparn..altr relatiprics in

Thmainaim.fIi alIideralim.nhrindin rliI 3I fth onstitutionisth frc and

• Ta hining exilmple •fcoperalie federalim In ur federal Lem thIale

Harrnonizatin ofTLaws acrs1humry:nlitugh,nrc and-ach·ta\I gisl.1ture hav"pa.dlhirwnTdcl.'thy

CmmnCompline lechanism- GTN,anon-for-profit,nn-rrovmmnrnl mpan

Jint apaityBuilding fforts -Joint capaityBuildingEffortsbCentreas wellas

JointTrade.,areneandIHrahEffirls:ntra1ngwiththestatovernmentfficials habnr anjsine: JLnl Trade

Jint Implementationommittees:lnorder toensuresmooth rolloutofGSTtheGTunii ha,

cnomiclnlegration- Tregimethenlire unt willb· m nmark-tanditwillb

Tiagrat ampl -prativefil,eralismanditmustbehailedinsteJdof foI mo

ndnn-•tariffbarric.. rtiI3 Puli<mntthp rI i'•st.l'iIfrC

utpianntitutinth111;:Hundredru1clfirstAm11mt.:nlt.20l71111hasi••thEenmic lntegrti11 and