- within Transport, Insurance and Privacy topic(s)
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
The Madras High Court has held that GST Council has no power to ratify any notification issued by the Central Government either under Section 9 or Section 11 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The High Court in this regard noted that any authority, whether constituted by the Constitution or a statute, can exercise only such powers that have been specifically conferred or by implication and that such bodies do not have any inherent power.
Observing that the power to ratify should be conferred explicitly or by necessary implication, the Court noted that neither the Constitution nor any statute has invested the GST Council with the power of ratification.
Ratification made by the GST Council in its 22nd meeting, in respect of Notifications nos. 27/2017-Central Tax (Rate), 28/2017 Central Tax (Rate), 27/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), 28/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), 27/2017-Union Territory Tax (Rate), 28/2017-Union Territory Tax (Rate), was thus held without jurisdiction.
As a result of these notifications, a product bearing a brand name on which an actionable claim or enforceable right in the court of law was available (other than situations where any actionable claim or enforceable right had been foregone voluntarily, subject to the conditions) would attract GST.
These notifications had added ‘enforceable right in a court of law’ over and above the recommendations of the 21st GST Council meeting and the 22nd GST Council meeting had ratified these. [Guru and Co. v. Union of India – 2026 VIL 607 MAD]
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]