Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Constitutional Validity -- The writ Appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 11.01.2019. The Petitioners prayed whether the State have the legislative competence to enact Section 174 and save the past taxation events-comprising levy, and recovery-when Entry 54, List II, which is the field of legislation empowering the State, stood omitted permanently with effect from 16.09.2017. The court observed that learned Single Judge has examined the question on authoritative principles and rendered legal and correct findings on the competence of the State Legislature and they are in full accord with the conclusions recorded in the impugned judgment. The State Legislature is competent to enact Section 174(2). The purpose of savings is intended to have certainty on initiation, enquiry, etc., even after the repeal is given effect. The rolling over to the GST regime does not automatically liquidate the obligations fastened on the Petitioners/Dealers and rights and functions conferred on the machinery to enforce the obligation or liability said to have been occasioned under the Act. The migration to GST is not an amnesty given to defaulting dealers from paying the tax due.

Held that:-The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ Appeals and directed that the impugned notices are saved by clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 174(2) of the Act and are within the competence of the Department. The court granted liberty to the petitioners interested in availing the remedy of reply/appeal/revision as the case may be to avail the remedy within eight weeks. The authorities are directed to entertain the statutory remedy or reply as the case may be without referring to the delay occasioned during the pendency of the Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals. The authorities are further directed to consider each one of the objections raised on merits and record their views while disposing of the matter pending before them.