"ARTICLE 19(1)(g): FREEDOM of TRADE, BUSINESS or PROFESSION"
Research by: Raja Abhishek
NIRC Candidate
The Constitution of India provides this fundamental right and cannot be denied for hyper-technical reasons associated with the GST regime.
GST is an over-regulated law!!
1. Madras High Court
1.1 Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center
GST enactments - Violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India - Provisions of GST enactments cannot be interpreted to deny right to carry on Trade and Commerce to a citizen and subjects -
Constitutional guarantee is unconditional and unequivocal and must be enforced regardless of defects in the scheme of GST enactments - Right to carry on trade or profession also cannot be curtailed - Only reasonable restriction can be imposed -
To deny such rights would militate against their rights under Article 14, read with Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
1.2 Abdul Samad Mohamed Inayatullah
Since keeping the assessee out of the GST regime serves no useful purpose and would violate constitutional rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21, the order cancelling their GST registration should be quashed.
1.3 Sri Marg Human Resources Pvt. Ltd.
Provisional Bank Account Attachment - GST: The petitioner company is accused of fraudulently using fake invoices for input tax credit to settle GST. HELD: Attachment cannot override rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.
2. Bombay High Court
2.1 Narayan Power Solution
Customs Authorities do not have explicit power to seal premises, as it is a drastic action to seal premises and search premises. This is a violation of Articles 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India.
3. Orissa High Court
3.1 Durga Ram Patnaik
Petitioner, if denied of revival of GST registration number, it would affect his right to livelihood (Article 21 of the Constitution of India) as well as right to carry on business [Article 19(1)(g)].
4. Calcutta High Court
4.1 Shew Bhagwan Goenka
1974 TAX. L R 1616 ::77 CAL W N 1026
Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act (1941) S.2 (1a) Restrictions imposed by the retrospective amendment are unreasonable; Section is hit by Article 19 (1) (f) and (g).
Restrictions were for Registration.
5. Andhra Pradesh High Court
5.1 J. V. Seshaiah and Sons
1972 TAX. L. R. 1706 ::28 S T C 614
Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules 1957 - Rule 45-D requiring oil millers of grounds-nuts to maintain register showing the hourly working of the decorticator and
expeller imposes excessive and arbitrary restrictions on the business of the oil millers and interferes with their right to carry on business under Art. 19 (1) (g) and is therefore invalid.
The rule does not help either the levy and collection of taxes or the check on tax evasion and cannot, therefore, be said to be in the public interest.
Hope you will find this useful.
Raja Abhishek
NIRC Candidate
9810638155