TEAM CODE: SLCU 052

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF:

IN RE: SPECIAL REFERENCE REGARDING THE 66TH

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2017.

SPECIAL REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 2017

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

Page | i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S R. NO. CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1. COVER PAGE 1
2. TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
3. TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
4. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
5. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5
6. SYNOPSIS OF FACTS 6-7
7. ISSUES RAISED 8
8. SUMAMRY OF ARGUMENTS 9
9. BODY OF ARGUMENTS 10-32
10. PRAYER 33

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
Ahmd. Ahmedabad

Page | ii
 AIR All India Report
ALL Allahbad
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Edn. Edition
Govt. Government
GST Goods And Services Act
Hon’ble Honorable
IGST Integrated Goods And Services Tax
IT Income Tax
ITD Income Tax department
Itr Income Tax Return
Ori. Orissa
Ors. Others
Pg no. Page no.
Re. Reference
Sec. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SGST State Goods And Services Tax
TN The North
UOI Union of India
U/A Under Article
v. Versus
Vat Value Added Tax

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

SR.NO NAME OF THE CASE

1. Assistant Collector of Central Excise v Madras Rubber Factory (1987) AIR 701.
Limited,
2. Cantonment Board, Poona v. Western India Theatres Ltd., AIR (1954) Bom 261.
3. CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 259 ITR 0449.
4. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. Mico Products Pvt. Ltd, (1990) 92 BOMLR 659.
5. Federation of Hotel & Restaurant v. Union of India & Ors, (1989) 3 SCC 634.
6. Hotel Dwaraka, Hyderabad V. the Union of India and ors, (1985)58 STC 241AP.
7. In Re: Central Provinces and Berar Sales of Motor Spirits and Special Reference No. 1
Lubricants Act, of 1938.
8. Jain Bros. & Ors. v. the Union of India and others, (1970) AIR 778.
9. Jindal Stainless Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Supra note note Note and Ors, (2010) 4 SCC 595.
10. Kesvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
11. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India & Ors, AIR (2006) SC 3127.
12. M. Nagraj v. Union of India, AIR (2007) SC 71.

Page | iii
13. McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO, (1986) AIR 649.
14. Pradeep Jain V. Union of India, (1984) AIR 1420
15. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) AIR 1420.
16. Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. The Bank of Commerce, (1947) 49 BOMLR 568.
17. Ram Partap v. State Of Punjab And Ors, AIR (1963) P H 354.
18. Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab, (1965) AIR 444.
19. S.R. Bommai and others v. Union of India, AIR (1994) SC 1918.
20. Sri Krishna Das V. Town Area Committee, Chirgaon, AIR (1991) SC 2096.
21. State of Karnataka v. Union of India & Anr., (1978) (2) SCR 1.
22. State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCR 1.
23. State of Rajasthan v UOI, (1977) AIR 1361.
24. State of West Bengal v. Union of India, (1963) AIR 1241.
25. Supra note note Note v. State of Punjab, AIR (2002) SC 685.
26. The Automobile… v. The State of Rajasthan, (1962) AIR 1406.
27. Union of India v. Harbhajan Singh Dhillon, (1972) AIR 1061.
28. Union of India v. Sankalchand, (1978) SCR (1) 423.

BOOKS/ STATUTES REFERRED

A. STATUTES

1. CGST Act, 2017

2. Income Tax Act, 1961

3. The Constitution of India, 1950

B. BOOKS

1. Ravi Puliani & Mahesh Puliani, Goods and Services Tax Manual (2nd ed. 2017,
Bharat Law House Delhi)
2. V.S. Datey, GST Ready Reckoner (4th ed. 2017, Taxmann’s)

3. Dr.Vinod K. Singhania & Dr. Monika Singhania, Students’ guide to Incoem Tax
(57th ed. 2017-18, Taxmann’s)
4. M.P. Jain, the Indian Constitutional law (6th ed. Reprint 2011, Lexis Nexus)

5. Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed.2015, Thomson Reuters)

C. WEBSITE REFERRED

Page | iv
1. http://www.cbec.gov.in

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The President of Westeros has sought for a Presidential Reference under Article 143 1 of the
Constitution of Westeros. The Respondent humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Court.

1
Power of President to consult Supreme Court ( 1 ) If at any time it appears to the President that a question of
law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is
expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for
consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon
(2) The President may, notwithstanding anything in the proviso to Article 131, refer a dispute of the kind
mentioned in the said proviso to the Supreme Court for opinion and the Supreme Court shall, after such hearing
as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon

Page | v
 SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

1. One of the several colonies which gained independence in the year 1947 from the British
Empire was The Republic of Westeros. The Constitution of Westeros was finally
completed in the year 1950.
2. Thereafter, Dr. Hank Pym, who was considered as the father of Constitution of Westeros ,
addressed the assembly and explained the true character of the Constitution of Westeros
in reference to federalism which was followed by further discussions in which Dr. Reed
Richards, member of the Constituent Assembly quoted German school of Political
philosophy according to which one of the most important criteria to interpret the concept
of Federalism was “the activity of state must not be completely circumscribed by orders
handed down for execution by the superior unit”.
3. Also, in the discussion it was said that the Constitution of Westeros is a federal
Constitution only to the extent that the states were granted powers under schedule VII of
the Constitution. Since it has always been the objective that the centre be allowed to
harmonise the nation as one socio-economic unit and not to provide the States with such
sweeping powers that they administrate themselves as “one isolated unit” and therefore,
the Constitution was made with a strong Centre to prevent the States from becoming
protectionist in nature.
4. Due to the presence of multiple statutes and separate administrative set ups lacking
uniformity, the current indirect tax regime of Westeros was highly convoluted and

Page | vi
 extremely cumbersome for people to conduct their business in Westeros which led to
increase in cost of compliance.
5. For the purpose of combating the multiplicity of problems created by the prevailing
indirect tax regime, the Prime Minister of Westeros, Mr. Vader along with the Finance
Minister, Mr. Skywalker decided to introduce the Goods and Services Tax to effectively
consolidate all the current indirect taxes being paid and to update the current
administrative setup.
6. The Parliament introduced the Goods and Services Tax by passing the 66 th Constitutional
Amendment Act, which casts away any doubts which the States had in relation to
impinging on their autonomy to levy/collect tax.
7. An Imperial Council was set up under the scheme of the Constitutional Amendment
which shall assist the States in resolving any grievances that they have regarding the rate
of tax, etc. and its function is merely recommendatory in nature.
8. On 18th of February, 2017 the Imperial Council finalized the Central GST (CGST), the
Integrated GST (IGST) and the Union Territory GST (UTGST) Act, which was finally
approved and passed with a roaring majority on 1 st of April, 2017. The President of
Westeros gave his assent to the aforesaid acts on 15th April, 2017 and simultaneously
drafts were being prepared by several states of their State GST (SGST) Acts.
9. It was further stated that all the laws of India (except SGST Acts and Rules) and Westeros
being pari materia, the 66th Constitutional Amendment Act is same as the 101 st
Constitutional Amendment Act of India.
10. A state in Westeros named The North released its SGST Act and defined “supply” under
section 7 of the said act. It states “supply means any income earned on Goods or Services
or both shall be deemed to be supply”.
11. An objection was raised by Mr. Tony Starke and Mr. Bruce Wayne, two influential
industrialists in Westeros regarding the legislative action of the state of The North which
has effectively imposed an income tax in the garb of GST under its SGST Act and several
representations have been made to the Prime Minister’s office by the above mentioned as
they considered to promote double taxation.
12. They had approached the High Court of the North challenging the vires of the TN SGST,
while the High Court of the North subsequently upheld the validity of the TN SGST Act.
Since the State of the North had the legislative competence to levy a tax on “supply”
therefore, the Hon’ble High Court deemed the jurisdiction of the state to be proper while
levying/imposing this tax.
Page | vii
13. President Francis Underwood took a note of the aforesaid litigation and sought for a
presidential reference under Article 143 seeing as how other states might also take
advantage of Art. 246 A ...........to further their own interests.
14. The Registrar of the Hon’ble Supreme Court after consulting the Attorney-General, Gold
D Roger impleaded Mr. Stark and Mr. Wayne as parties to be heard in the presidential
reference.

ISSUES RAISED

(A) WHETHER THE SCOPE OF ‘SUPPLY’ UNDER ARTICLE 246A IS

RESTRICTED BY THE DEFINITIONS PROVIDED IN THE TN-SGST AND
OTHER STATE GST LEGISLATIONS?

(B) WHETHER THE CURRENT FISCAL REGIME UNDER THE

CONSTITUTION OF WESTEROS PERMIT DOUBLE TAXATION BY THE
VARIOUS GST LEGISLATIONS AND THUS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE
19(1) (g)?

(C) WHETHER THE 66TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT VIOLATES THE

PRINCIPLE OF FEDERALISM EMBODIED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF
BASIC STRUCTURE?

Page | viii
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

(A) WHETHER THE SCOPE OF ‘SUPPLY’ UNDER ARTICLE 246A IS RESTRICTED

BY THE DEFINITIONS PROVIDED IN THE TN-SGST AND OTHER STATE GST
LEGISLATIONS?

It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court that the scope of supply under article 246 A has
not at all been restricted by the definition provided under the TN-SGST Act as the definition
includes the term ‘income’ which is a very wide term in itself and is open to be interpreted by
the Hon’ble Court so as to ensure free flow of trade and welfare of society. Also the Hon’ble
High Court of the North upheld the validity of the aforementioned legislation and opined that
in absence of any constitutional definition, the meaning ascribed to it would depend upon the
SGST Legislation.

(B) WHETHER THE CURRENT FISCAL REGIME UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF

WESTEROS PERMIT DOUBLE TAXATION BY THE VARIOUS GST
LEGISLATIONS AND THUS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 19(1) (G)?

It is most humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court that there is no question of double taxation
under the current fiscal regime and subsequently no violation of Article 19 (1) (g) of the
Constitution of Westeros. The taxes imposed by the various GST legislations are
appropriately within the jurisdiction and purely in the exercise of powers conferred to the
States by the Constitution of Westeros. It is also submitted that taxation on goods and
services has always been the subject matter on which booth Centre as well as the States have
power to make laws upon. Thus, no right of petitioner has been violated.

Page | ix
(C) WHETHER THE 66TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT VIOLATES OF THE
PRINCIPLE OF FEDERALISM EMBODIED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF BASIC
STGRUCTURE?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the 66 th constitutional amendment
is not at all violative of the principle of federalism as Constitution of Westeros does not
follow strict federal pattern rather it is a quasi-federal Constitution. It is federal only to the
extent of demarcation of powers between the Centre and States under the Seventh Schedule.
The structure of the Constitution has been canvassed in such a way that the States do not get
sweeping powers thus start acting as isolated units. This has been done after having
anticipated the devastating effects of forming a truly federal structure.

Page | x
 BODY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE SCOPE OF ‘SUPPLY’ UNDER ARTICLE 246A IS

RESTRICTED BY THE DEFINITIONS PROVIDED IN THE TN-SGST AND OTHER
STATE GST LEGISLATIONS?
1.1. It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble court that the scope of ‘supply’ under Article 246A2 is
by no means restricted by the definition provided under state TN-SGST Act and other state
legislations. It shall be duly considered that the Hon’ble High Court of the North upheld the
validity of the TN-SGST Act, since the state of the North had the legislative competence to
levy a tax on ‘supply’. It was opined while giving the judgment that in the absence of any
constitutional definition of the term ‘supply’, the meaning ascribed to it would depend upon
the definition provided under the SGST Act. Therefore, the state was well within its
jurisdiction to levy/impose such a tax.
1.2. Further,the term, “supply” as has been inclusively defined in the CGST Act3 and clause (a)
reads as: Supply includes all forms of supply of goods and/ or services such as sale, transfer,
barter, exchange, license, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a
consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business.
1.3. The meaning and scope of supply under GST can be understood in terms of following six
parameters, which can be adopted to characterize a transaction as supply:

1. Supply of goods or services. Supply of anything other than goods or services does not
attract GST

2. Supply should be made for a consideration

3. Supply should be made in the course or furtherance of business

4. Supply should be made by a taxable person

5. Supply should be a taxable supply

6. Supply should be made within the taxable territory.

2
246A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in articles 246 and 254, Parliament, and, subject to clause (2),
the Legislature of every State, have power to make laws with respect to goods and services tax imposed by the
Union or by such State.
(2) Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to goods and services tax where the supply of
goods, or of services, or both takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.
Explanation.—The provisions of this article, shall, in respect of goods and services tax referred to in clause (5)
of article 279A, take effect from the date recommended by the Goods and Services Tax Council.]
3
Section 7.

Page | 1
1.4. Furthermore, while these six parameters describe the concept of supply, there are a few
exceptions to the requirement of supply being made for a consideration and in the course or
furtherance of business. Any transaction involving supply of goods or services without
consideration is not a supply, barring few exceptions, in which a transaction is deemed to be a
supply even without consideration. Further, import of services for a consideration, whether or
not in the course or furtherance of business is treated as supply.

1.5. Henceforth, it is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble court that the definition of ‘supply’ given
under the SGST Act in section 74 of ‘The North’ which includes the term ‘income’ shall not
be deemed to be restrictive instead shall be considered as to adding up to the scope of supply
with reference to the income as mentioned in the Income Tax Act, 1961so as to widen the
interpretation of the term ‘supply’.

1.6. It is submitted to the Hon’ble Court that, ‘Income’ under section 2 (24) 5 of the Income Tax
Act includes- all the sums chargeable under section 28(3)6 of the Income tax Act mainly
4
Section 7 “Supply means any income earned on goods or services or both shall be deemed to be supply”.
5
Section 2(24) " income" includes-
(i) profits and gains;
(ii) dividend;
(iia) 7 voluntary contributions received by a trust created wholly or partly for charitable or religious purposes or
by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes  8 or by an association or institution referred to in
clause (21) or clause (23), or by a fund or trust or institution referred to in subclause (iv) or sub- clause (v) of
clause (23C) of section 10]. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub- clause," trust" includes any other legal
obligation;]
6
Section 28 Profits and gains of business or profession 1The following income shall be chargeable to income-
tax under the head" Profits and gains of business or profession",-
(i) the profits and gains of any business or profession which was carried on by the assessee at any time during
the previous year;
(ii) any compensation or other payment due to or received by,-
(a) any person, by whatever name called, managing the whole or substantially the whole of the affairs of an
Indian company, at or in connection with the termination of his management or the modification of the terms
and conditions relating thereto;
(b) any person by whatever name called, managing the whole or substantially the whole of the affairs in India of
any other company, at or in connection with the termination of his office or the modification of the terms and
conditions relating thereto;
(c) any person, by whatever name called, holding an agency in India for any part of the activities relating to the
business of any other person, at or in connection with the termination of the agency or the modification of the
terms and conditions relating thereto;
(d)  any person, for or in connection with the vesting in the Government, or in any corporation owned or
controlled by the Government, under any law for the time being in force, of the management of any property or
business;]
(iii) income derived by a trade, professional or similar association from specific services performed for its
members;
(iiia)  profits on sale of a licence granted under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 , made under the Imports and
Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (18 of 1947 );]
(iiib)  cash assistance (by whatever name called) received or receivable by any person against exports under any
scheme of the Government of India;]
(iiic)  any duty of customs or excise re- paid or re- payable as drawback to any person against exports under the
Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971 ;]

Page | 2
 inclusive of income derived by a trade, professional or similar association, from specific
services performed for its members; profits on sale of a license granted; cash assistance; the
value of any benefit or perquisite.

1.7. Thus, it is humbly submitted that inclusion of the term ‘income’ instead of restricting the
scope of the term ‘supply’ in the section 7 7 of SGST Act of The North has made it wider and
open to interpretation, hence adding upon its scope. Also, inclusion of income with respect to
the definition of supply is nowhere concerned with the concept of ‘consideration’ as in the
CGST Act which seems to be a term vague enough in comparison to the term ‘income’ as
included in the TN-SGST Act.

1.8. Further, it is submitted that supply is a taxable event in GST and the term ‘supply’ has been
defined in an inclusive manner. The word ‘includes’ itself signifies that it intends to put a
check by the administration and has been used in definition is used to enlarge the meaning of
the words or phrases occurring in the body. The concept of ‘barter’ is different from
‘exchange’ only to the extent that in barter, goods and/or services are exchanged for goods
and/or services whereas, in exchange, goods and/or services besides other goods and/or
services could also be exchanged for property. Thus, exchange is a wider word than barter. In
commercial world, the words barter and exchange are used interchangeably.

1.9. Moreover, income is a wide term in itself and the only reason to define ‘supply’ in terms of
income was to avoid multiplicity of problems and to clarify the confusions which may arise
while imposing tax.

1.10. It shall also be noted that whenever there arises any conflict between two laws then the very
purpose of enactment of those laws shall be taken into consideration. It shall be interpreted
diligently and Court shall strive to find out the true sense of an enactment by giving the
words of the enactment their natural and ordinary meaning. Further, the object of

(iv)  the value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, arising from business or the
exercise of a profession;]
(v)  any interest, salary, bonus, commission or remuneration, by whatever name called, due to, or received by, a
partner of a firm from such firm: Provided that where any interest, salary, bonus, commission or remuneration,
by whatever name called, or any part thereof has not been allowed to be deducted under clause (b) of section 40,
the income under this clause shall be adjusted to the extent of the amount not so allowed to be
deducted.] 2 Explanation 1-Omitted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 , w. e. f 1- 4- 1989 .]
Explanation 2.- Where speculative transactions carried on by an assessee are of such a nature as to constitute a
business, the business (hereinafter referred to as" speculation business") shall be deemed to be distinct and
separate from any other business.
7
Supra note note Note 5.

Page | 3
 interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention of the legislature conveyed expressly or
impliedly in the language used. As stated by Salmond, a well known jurist, "by interpretation
or construction is meant, the process by which the courts seek to ascertain the meaning of the
legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed."8

1.11. It is further submitted to the Hon’ble Court that when there is a conflict between two or more
statutes or two or more parts of a statute then the rule of harmonious construction needs to be
adopted for the interpretation of the same. The rule follows a very simple premise that every
statute has a purpose and intent as per law and should be read as a whole. The interpretation
consistent of all the provisions of the statute should be adopted.

1.12. In the landmark case of CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers 9, the Supreme Court laid down
principles of rule of Harmonious Construction:

1. The Courts must avoid a head on clash of seemingly contradicting provisions and they
must construe the contradictory provisions so as to harmonize them.
2. The provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provision contained in
another unless the court, despite all its effort, is unable to find a way to reconcile their
differences. When it is impossible to completely reconcile the differences in
contradictory provisions, the courts must interpret them in such as way so that effect
is given to both the provisions as much as possible.
3. Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one provision to a
useless.

Hence, it is to say that to harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it
fruitless.

1.13. Moreovee it was stated that the Courts should avoid “a head on clash”, by the Apex Court,
between the different parts of an enactment and conflict between the various provisions
should be sought to be harmonized. The normal presumption should be in consistency and it
should not be assumed that what is given with one hand by the legislature is sought to be
taken away by the other. The rule of harmonious construction has been tersely explained by
the Supreme Court thus, “When there are, in an enactment two provisions which cannot be
reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted, that if possible, effect should be

8
 P J Fitzgerald, Salmond On Jurisprudence 152 (12th ed, Universal Law Publishing Co.Pvt.Ltd.,2008). 
9
(2003) 259 ITR 0449

Page | 4
 given to both”. A construction which makes one portion of the enactment a dead letter should
be avoided since harmonization is not equivalent to destruction.
1.14. In the landmark judgment of Rattan Lal v. State Of Punjab 10 while considering the scope of
such a provision the Court adopted the rule of beneficial construction as enunciated by the
modern trend of judicial opinion without doing violence to the provisions of the relevant
section. 
1.15. Moreover,while interpreting In Re: Central Provinces and Berar Sales of Motor Spirits and
Lubricants Act11 the question arose whether Central Provinces could impose sales tax on
same goods on which the Federal Govt. had levied excise duty and thus double taxation.
Answering in favour of Central Provinces, C.J. Gwyer opined that it is the fundamental
assumption that the legislative powers of the Federal and Provincial Legislatures were not
designed in a manner to arise or remain in conflict. In case of conflict the power has to be
read in a manner where the conflict can be avoided. 
1.16. It is pertinent to note that rule of beneficial construction must also be considered while
discussing harmonious construction and it involves giving the widest meaning possible to the
statutes. When there are two or more possible ways of interpreting a section or a word, the
meaning which gives relief and protects the benefits which are purported to be given by the
legislation, should be chosen. A beneficial statute has to be construed in its correct
perspective so as to fructify the legislative intent.
1.17. Similarly, the doctrine has been applied in Westeros majorly to provide a degree of flexibility
in the otherwise rigid scheme of distribution of powers. The reason for adoption of this
doctrine is that if every legislation were to be declared invalid on the grounds that it
encroached upon powers, the powers of the legislature would be drastically circumscribed.
1.18. That “the legislature derives its power from Article 246 12 and other related articles of the
Constitution. Therefore, the power to make the Amendment Act is derived not from the
respective entries but under Article 246 of the Constitution. The language of the respective
entries should be given the widest scope of their meaning, fairly capable to meet the
10
(1965) AIR 444.
11
Special Reference No. 1 of 1938.
12
Article 246 Subject matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States
(1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses ( 2 ) and ( 3 ), Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with
respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the
Union List)
(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause ( 3 ), Parliament, and, subject to clause ( 1 ), the Legislature of any State
also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule
(in this Constitution referred to as the Concurrent List)
(4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory of India not
included (in a State) notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List.

Page | 5
 machinery of the Government settled by the Constitution. Each general word should extend
to all “ancillary or subsidiary matters” which can fairly and reasonably be comprehended in
it. When the vires of an enactment is impugned, there is an initial presumption of its
constitutionality and if there is any difficulty in ascertaining the limits of the legislative
power, the difficulty must be resolved, as far as possible in favour of the legislature putting
the most liberal construction upon the legislative entry so that it may have the widest
amplitude.”
1.19. Further, in the case of Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. the Bank of Commerce13, the court held
that whatever may be the ancillary or incidental effects of a Statute enacted by a State
Legislature, such a matter must be attributed to the Appropriate List according to its true
nature and character. In the case at hand, it is pertinent to note that the GST being a matter
enumerated in none of the lists is subject of the state as well as union both to form the
relevant laws. Thus, we see that if the encroachment by the State Legislature is only
incidental in nature, it will not affect the Competence of the State Legislature to enact the law
in question. Also, if the substance of the enactment falls within the Union List then the
incidental encroachment by the enactment on the State List would not make it invalid.
1.20. Moreover, in harmonious construction, one of the laws is read down to give space to other
whereas in pith and substance the attempt is to find the real pith and substance of law  and
where does it fall, i.e., in State List or the Union List. Moreover, result of both the tests is
actually same and thus, both are relevant in the case in hand as the State GST Act imposed by
The North shall be read with the Central GST Act as the aim and objective of both the acts
are same and for the benefit of the public at large. Similarly, the real pith and substance of
both the acts is to remove the cumbersomeness of the previous taxation regime which
included number of indirect taxes and made the system more complicated.

13
(1947) 49 BOMLR 568.

Page | 6
 2. WHETHER THE CURRENT FISCAL REGIME UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF
WESTEROS PERMIT DOUBLE TAXATION BY THE VARIOUS GST
LEGISLATIONS AND THUS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 19(1) (G)?

2.1. The current fiscal regime of the Republic of Westeros refers to the inclusion of Goods and
Services Tax which is a comprehensive, multi-stage, destination-based tax that will be levied
on every value addition.
2.2. It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that Prime Minister Mr. Vader and the Finance
Minister, Mr. Skywalker decided to introduce the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in order to
combat the multiplicity of problems due to the prevalent indirect tax regime in Westeros
which is considered to be highly convoluted and cumbersome for people to conduct their
business in the country. It has adopted the dual GST model in which both States and Centre
levies tax on Goods or Services or both to effectively consolidate all the current indirect taxes
being paid and it has been insured that the current administrative setup would be updated
with digital infrastructure effectively lowering the compliance cost and hence making the
business in the country comparatively more convenient. The existing indirect taxation
structure and its administration mechanism consist of various problems such as:-

(a) cascading effect on cost of products and services adversely affects competitiveness of
indigenous goods and services;

(b) different tax treatment for manufacturing and service sectors leads to litigation;

(c) high cost of compliance and tax administration add to the cost of doing business in
Westeros and discourage new investment and leads to high cost of economy. The complex
tax structure discourages economy of scale and efficiency in the supply chain which has
adverse impact on economic growth.

Hence, there arose a need for change in the taxation system of the Westeros which was to be
simpler and convenient than the earlier tax regime. From this need of change arose the ‘need
for GST’. Thus, the main aim for the introduction of GST was to simplify the previous
taxation system. The current fiscal regime aims at simplifying taxation system and hence
there exists nothing like double taxation under the modified law.

2.3. That the success of GST as humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court can be widely seen by the
very fact that there are around 160 countries in the world that have GST in place. GST is a

Page | 7
 destination based taxed where the tax is collected by the State where goods are consumed.
Before GST, tax on tax was calculated and tax was paid by every purchaser including the
final consumer. The taxation on tax is called the Cascading Effect of Taxes. GST avoids this
cascading effect as tax is calculated only on the value added at each transfer of ownership. 

2.4. It is further submitted that double taxation as is understood by its very word meaning means
“the levying of tax by two or more jurisdictions on the same declared income (in terms
of income taxes), asset (in terms of capital taxes), or financial transaction (in the case of sales
taxes).” The essentials of double taxation has also been defined in the case of Sri Krishna Das
v. Town Area Committee, Chirgaon,14 it was stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it did
not find any merit in the appellant's submission that there was double taxation in the present
case. To constitute double taxation, the two or more taxes must have been (1) levied on the
same property or subject matter, (2) by the same Government or authority, (3) during the
same taxing period, and (4) for the same purpose. "There is no double taxation, strictly
speaking" says Cooley, "where (a) the taxes are imposed by different States, (b) one of the
impositions is not a tax, (c) one tax is against property and the other is not a property tax, or
(d) the double taxation is indirect rather than direct." Similarly, in the matter at hand there is
nothing like double taxation because the power has been conferred on the States in order to
make sure that States enjoy some authority under the current fiscal regime.

2.5. Furthermore, in case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise v Madras Rubber Factory
Limited,15 the Court held that there is no general principle that there can be no “double
taxation” in the levy of excise duty. The Court may lean in favour of a construction which
will avoid double taxation. Likewise, in the matter at hand though there is nothing like double
taxation, the Court while deciding the case may rely upon the abovementioned judgment.

2.6. It is pertinent to note that the introduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) would be a very
significant step in the field of indirect tax reforms in Westeros from the consumer point of
view, the biggest advantage would be in terms of a reduction in the overall tax burden on
goods, which is currently estimated to be around 25%-30%. GST would check leakage of
revenue and the States should be able to realize tax revenues to commensurate consumption
of goods and services within their territory, thereby providing a stable source of tax revenue
and would play a very vital role in sewing India together into one common market. Last but

14
 AIR (1991) SC 2096.
15
(1987) AIR 701.

Page | 8
 not the least, this tax, because of its transparent and self- policing character, would be easier
to administer.

2.7. Moreover, it is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that during the introduction of GST in
Westeros the Central Government had faced severe criticism and opposition from multiple
States. A major concern for the States was loss of revenue and lack of autonomy in the
States’ taxing power. Therefore, prior to the enactment of the Model GST laws by the
Imperial Council, the Parliament had introduced the 66th Constitutional Amendment which
casts away any doubts which the States had in relation to impinging on their autonomy to
levy/collect tax. The amended Article 246A16 provides power to States to make laws with
respect to goods and services tax imposed by such State. This power has been provided in
order to ensure that States do not feel discarded and enjoy autonomous powers in furtherance
of the idea of federalism. Furthermore, there is no such thing like income tax imposed in the
garb of GST rather it is just a tax on supply of goods and services within the territory of the
State. The petitioners are misinterpreting the GST Act passed by the State of North as there
exist no such concept as double taxation under the current fiscal regime of Constitution of
Westeros.

2.8. That, Article 246A17 of the Constitution of Westeros permits States to levy taxes on goods
and services, and hence there is nothing in this Article that shall prevent the States from
levying additional GST. The laws regarding goods and services as passed by Central and
State legislatures are in accordance with the territorial jurisdiction of Union and States and
there is no repugnancy between the two laws.

2.9. It is pertinent to note that the taxes imposed by TN-SGST are completely valid as there is no
constitutional inhibition against such taxation; and in the absence of constitutional restriction,
power of legislature to tax is limited only by its own discretion and its responsibility to its
constituents. It has been said that the power to tax is an inherent right of sovereignty,
necessary to its existence, and limited only by its necessities.18

2.10. That, in the historic case of Federation of Hotel & Restaurant V Union of India & Ors 19, it
was stated that a taxing statute is not, per-se, a restriction of the freedom under Article 19(1)

16
Supra note 2.
17
Ibid.
18
Henry Campbell Black, A Treatise on the Law of Income Taxation under Federal and State Laws (Reprinted
2002, Vernon Law Book Co).
19
(1989) 3 SCC 634.

Page | 9
 (g)20. The policy of a tax, in its effectuation, might, of course, bring in some hardship in some
individual cases. But that is inevitable, so long as law represents a process of abstraction from
the generality of cases and reflects the highest common-factor. In the instant case as well the
major concern is the welfare of public and to ensure the smooth functioning of
administration. Thus, the GST legislation passed by the State of North is in no way the
restriction of freedom under Article 19 (1) (g)21.

2.11. Furthermore, the implementation of GST is one of the biggest indirect tax reforms in the
country as it is expected to bring together State economies and improve overall economic
growth of the nation. GST is a “comprehensive indirect tax” levy on manufacture, sale and
consumption of goods as well as services at the national level. It will replace “all indirect
taxes levied on goods and services by States and Central”.

2.12. Moreover, the Republic of Westeros is a federal country where both the Centre and the States
have been assigned the powers to levy and collect taxes. Both the levels of Government have
distinct responsibilities to perform, as per the Constitution, for which they need to raise
resources and for this very reason Centre and States are simultaneously levying GST.

2.13. It is pertinent to note that the 66th Constitutional amendment purports to ensure the concept
“One nation one tax”. By the current fiscal regime with the introduction of GST, the tax
structure including 3 types of taxes were implemented to help taxpayers take the credit
against each other thus ensuring the basic objective of “one nation one tax”.

2.14. It is humbly submitted that the idea with which IGST is designed is to ensure seamless flow
of input tax credit from one State to another. Every State has to deal only with the Central
government to settle the tax amounts and not with every other state, thus making the process
simpler. It is to bring in the kind notice of this Hon’ble Court that indirect taxes are often
charged twice or thrice on the same good or service. The inflated bill is then glibly passed on
to the consumer. By unifying taxes, GST sorts out these tangles and allows smoother tax set-
offs across the value chain. This is bound to reduce selling prices for consumers.

2.15. It is pertinent to note that introduction of GST is considered to be a significant step in the
reform of indirect taxation in the Republic of Westeros. Amalgamating of various Central and
State taxes into a single tax under the name of GST would help mitigate the difficulties of

20
19 (1) (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
21
Supra note20

Page | 10
 double taxation, cascading, multiplicity of taxes, classification issues, taxable event, etc., and
leading to a common national market. Therefore, the allegations put up by Mr. Stark and Mr.
Wayne that the State GST Act introduced by The North has included income tax in the garb
of GST is completely vague and is not to be taken into consideration at any point so as to
challenge the scope of the State GST Act. Also, it is clearly mentioned that new tax regime in
the country has been introduced so as to introduce transparent and corruption-free tax
administration. The sole purpose of the current fiscal regime is to remove the current
shortcomings in the indirect tax structure and it has no role to play with respect to the direct
tax i.e. income tax as it has its separate tax regime for its collection and its imposition.

2.16. In the popular case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. Mico Products Pvt. Ltd 22., it was
stated that there can be no doubt that a taxing statute which validates imposition of a tax
earlier held invalid by a court of law can be retrospective in operation and be not, on that
account, considered unreasonable or violating Article 19 (1)(g)23, especially when the tax has
already been collected.

2.17. Moreover, it was laid down in the aforementioned case that there is nothing in Article
26524 of the Constitution from which one can spin out the constitutional vice
called double taxation. If on the same subject matter the legislative chooses to levy tax twice
over there is no inherent invalidity in the fiscal adventure save where other prohibitions exist.
In the recent case the tax is not being imposed twice rather it is just one tax which has been
divided in order to ensure effective administration under the current fiscal regime.

2.18. In the landmark case of Jain Bros. & Ors. v. Union of India and others 25, it was stated that
there can be double taxation if the legislature has distinctly enacted it. It is only when there
are general words of taxation and they have to be interpreted; they cannot be so interpreted as
to tax the subject twice over to the same tax. Similarly in the matter at hand the tax which has
been imposed is simply a tax on supply of goods and services and it shall not be interpreted in
such a way that it seems to be covered in the ambit of double taxation.

22
(1990) 92 BOMLR 659.
23
Supra note 22.
24
Article 265. Taxes not to be imposed save by authority of law No tax shall be levied or collected except by
authority of law.
25
(1970) AIR 778.

Page | 11
2.19. In another case of Ram Partap v. State Of Punjab And Ors., 26 the Court held that article
265 of the Constitution merely says that no tax shall be levied or collected except by
authority of law', and in this article there is no limitation that tax cannot be charged twice on
the same property. In fact and in substance it is one tax on buildings and lands which is
divided between the local authority and the State Government, though this is brought about
not by one statute but by two separate statutes.

2.20. Further, in the case of Cantonment Board, Poona v. Western India Theatres Ltd.,27 the learned
judges made these observations: We fail to understand that there is anything in our
Constitution which prevents double taxation being levied. It is quite "true that if ordinarily a
Provincial Legislature wanted to levy for itself a tax, it would not pass two laws levying two
different duties in respect of the same subject-matter, in this case an entertainment, there is
nothing to prevent the Provincial Legislature from charging in respect of entertainments BS
much tax as it likes. It would not therefore dream-of passing of two Acts levying two separate
entertainments duties."

2.21. Furthermore, in case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO,28 which was probably one of the most
debated decisions when it was first delivered; this decision remains landmark in terms of
explaining the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. It also clearly frowned upon
tax avoidance, a legal way of avoiding tax and held that tax planning was legitimate provided
it was within the framework of the law. Colorable devices cannot be part of tax planning and
it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is honorable to avoid the payment of tax
by resorting to dubious methods. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay taxes honestly
without resorting to subterfuges.

2.22. Henceforth, it can be evident from the facts of case in hand that the learned petitioners are
trying to excuse themselves from paying taxes by making false allegations of double taxation
and violation of fundamental rights.

26
AIR (1963) P H 354.
27
AIR (1954) Bom. 261.
28
(1986) AIR 649.

Page | 12
3. WHETHER THE 66TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT VIOLATES OF THE
PRINCIPLE OF FEDERALISM EMBODIED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF BASIC
STGRUCTURE?
3.1. It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble court that Professor K.C. Wheare, generally regarded
as the Father of contemporary federal theories, defined ‘federalism’ or ‘federal government’,
as "the method of dividing power so that general and regional governments are each within a
sphere co-ordinate and independent"29. ‘The Constitution establishes a system of Government
which is almost ‘quasi-federal’…….. a unitary state with subsidiary unitary features.’30
3.2. The Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘federalism’ as ‘the legal relationship and distribution of
power between the national and the regional government within a federal system of
government.’31
3.3. But the question that arises in the case in hand is that whether the Constitution of Westeros
confines to the term “federal constitution” to case where the federal principles have been
applied completely and without any exceptions? Dr. Wheare in this case suggests that
exceptions to the concept of federalism are permissible provided that the federal principle is
predominantly retained in the constitution under the doctrine of basic structure.32
3.4. It is further submitted that an essential feature of every federal Constitution is the distribution
of powers between the Central Government and the governments of the several units forming
the federation. The term ‘Federation’ referred here means the distribution of the power of the
state among a number of coordinate bodies, each originating in and controlled by the

29
Infra 36.
30
K.C. Wheare – India’s New Constitution analyzed, (1950) ALJ 22.
31
Bryan A. Garner Black’s Law Dictionary pg no. 644 (8th ed.)
32
Preeti Srivastava (Dr) v. State of M.P., (1999) 7 SCC 120.

Page | 13
 constitution itself being the supreme. The states do not depend upon the Centre, for in normal
times the Centre cannot intrude.33
3.5. With reference to the case in hand, the Centre and the States have been provided a clear
demarcation of their legislative powers under the Constitution. It is difficult to see how such a
Constitution can be called a ‘centralized one’. Also, this is to be emphasized that, as to the
relations between the Centre and the States, it is necessary to bear in mind the fundamental
principle on which it rests.
3.6. The essential characteristics of a federal Constitution, which have been enumerated above
including the division of powers, are present in the Constitution of India. The Constitution of
India establishes a dual polity, a two-tier governmental system, with the central government
at one level and the state government at the other. The dual policy consists of the Union at the
Centre and the States at the periphery, each endowed with sovereign powers to be exercised
in the field assigned to them respectively by the Constitution. 34 The Constitution is written
and is supreme and hence, the states derive their power to form the legislature not from the
union but from the constitution itself under Article 246(1).35
3.7. In the landmark judgment of S.R. Bommai and others v. Union of India,36 it was said that our
Constitution has a federal structure. Several provisions of the Constitution unmistakably
show that the founding fathers intended to create a strong Centre...” True, the federal
principle is dominant in our Constitution and that principle is one of its basic features, but, it
is also equally true that federalism under Indian Constitution leans in favor of a strong
Centre, a feature that militates against the concept of strong federalism.
3.8. Further submitted, former Chief Justice Beg, in State of Rajasthan v UOI, 197737 called the
Constitution of India as ‘amphibian’. He said that ”….If then our Constitution creates a
Central Government which is ‘amphibian’, in the sense that it can move either on the federal
or on the unitary plane, according to the needs of the situation and circumstances of a
case…”.
3.9. The Court, in its majority in the aforesaid landmark case of S.R. Bommai and others v. Union
of India38  has given what the federal nature of the Constitution of India is. They have further
stressed that the direct and absolute application of the principle of a Federal State of
33
Dicey: law of the Constitution, (IX ed.), p. 157.
34
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 20 (6th ed. reprint 2011, Lexis Nexis).
35
Article 246(1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses ( 2 ) and ( 3 ), Parliament has exclusive power to make
laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution
referred to as the Union List)
36
AIR (1994) SC 1918.
37
AIR (1977) 1361.
38
Supra note note Note note 38.

Page | 14
 American Constitution would be misleading on the Indian Constitution. The concept of
Federalism cannot be followed in its strict sense in India due to the circumstances that prevail
here.
3.10. In Pradeep Jain v. Union of India39, the Apex Court observed that India is not a federal State
in the traditional sense of that term. It is not a compact of sovereign State which have come
together to form a federation by ceding undoubtedly federal features.
3.11. Another case in this issue is that of State of West Bengal v. Union of India 40. This case dealt
with the issue of exercise of sovereign powers by the Indian States. The Supreme Court in
this case held that the Indian Constitution does not promote a principle of ‘Absolute
Federalism’.
3.12. Also it was cited in the Landmark Judgment of Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India & Ors 41 that
the basic principle of Federalism is that the legislative and executive authority is partitioned
between the Centre and the States, not by any law made by the Centre, but by the
Constitution itself which is considered to be the supreme authority. This is what the
Constitution does. The States, under our Constitution, are in no way dependent upon the
Centre for their legislative or executive authority. The Centre and the States are co-equal in
this matter. It is difficult to see how such a Constitution can be called centralism
3.13. Furthermore, it is to say that in the case of Union of India v. Harbhajan Singh Dhillon 42 a
seven judge bench while determining the scope of legislative powers of Parliament observed
as follows: we have three lists and a residuary power and, therefore it seems to us that in this
context if a Central Act is challenged as being beyond the competence of Parliament, it is
enough to enquire if it is a law with respect to matters or taxes enumerated in List II. If it is
not, no further question arises.
3.14. There are certain provisions on the basis of which it is asserted that the fundamental postulate
of a federal polity that the Central and State Governments functioning under it are coordinate
authorities, each independent within its own sphere, is so greatly modified in the relationship
between the union and the states that the Indian constitution cannot be called as an absolutely
federal constitution. Professor Wheare holds that the Indian constitution establishes a system
of Government which is at the most ‘quasi-federal’43.

39
AIR (1984) 1420.
40
AIR (1963) 1241.
41
AIR (2006) SC 3127.
42
AIR (1972) SCC 1061.
43
Wheare: India’s New Constitution Analysed, 48 All LJ 21.

Page | 15
3.15. Dr. Reed Richards while defining the term “federalism” has given a definition which include
three criteria among which the most important one reads as ‘that the activity of the state must
not be completely circumscribed by orders handed down for execution by the superior unit,
the important words here are “must not be completely circumscribed”, which envisage that
some power of the state are bound to be circumscribed by the exercise of federal authority.
3.16. In the landmark judgment of Supra note note Note v. State of Punjab,44 the Hon’ble Court
held that political integrity of the Union and each State seems to be essential to the federal
concept. Moreover, the principle of "co-operative" federalism has been accepted in all
modern democracies and we, in India, have a strong unitary tilt in the Constitution.
3.17. It is further urged in the same reference that the Constitution of Westeros is a federal
constitution only to the extent that states have been granted powers under schedule VII 45 of
the Constitution of Westeros. It was said that the Constitution of Westeros is such that in
which we have given powers to the units which are both substantial and significant in the
legislative sphere and in the executive sphere. The Constitution will never mandate a
situation whereby the basic tenets such as repugnancy between state and Centre subjects shall
be permissible.
3.18. Therefore, the prevalence of State GST Act introduced under 66 th Constitutional Amendment
Act along with the Central GST Act is nowhere violative of the fundamental principle of
Federalism as alleged by the learned opponent counsel. The structure of the Constitution has
not been canvassed to provide the states with such sweeping powers that they administrate
themselves as one isolated unit. It has always been objective of the Constitution that the
Centre be allowed to harmonize the nation as one socio economic unit. If the Constitution of
Westeros would have been based on a truly federal structure, then there would be devastating
effects, such as a grant of rights of self-determination to each state becoming protectionist in
nature and hampering its neighbors. The basic idea of promoting the concept of federalism
with a strong Centre is to culminate the concept of Provincialism.
3.19. A majority of Judges who decided the Kesvananda Bharati's case 46 has not treated
"federalism" as part of the basic structure of the Constitution and none of them has discussed
the extent of the "federal" part of this structure and henceforth, there is no point of
challenging the 66th amendment act as violative of principle of federalism. It is not enough to

44
AIR (2002) SC 685.
45
 The legislative section is divided into three lists: Union List, State List and Concurrent List.

46
(1973) 4 SCC 225.

Page | 16
 point out Art.147 of the Constitution to emphasize that Republic of Westeros is a "Union" of
States. The word "Union" was used in the context of the peculiar character of our federal
Republic revealed by its express provisions. One has to find from other express provisions
what this 'Union' means or what is the extent or nature of "federalism" implied by it. The
Constitution itself does not use the word "federation" at all.
3.20. The case of S. R. Bommai v. UOI 48 is a landmark case in defining the powers of the Centre
with respect to Art 356 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with emergency provision
where the President can impose his rule over the State. It is humbly submitted that this
provision of Indian constitution does not leads to affect the federal principle but is necessary
to maintain the integrity of the country and to avoid the isolation and autonomy of the states.
3.21. In the landmark judgment given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Nagraj v. Union of
India49, it was said that in the matter of application of principle of basic structure, ‘twin tests’
have to be satisfied; namely, the “width test” and the test of “identity”. Firstly, it is the width
of the power under the impugned amendments introducing and amending Articles has to be
tested. The boundaries of ‘width’ of the power are not obliterated by the impugned
amendments. Secondly, applying the ‘test’ of identity there is no alteration in the existing
federal structure of the Constitution by the impugned amendments. Equity, justice and
efficiency are the limitations on the mode of exercise of powers by the State. None of these
limitations have been removed by the impugned amendments. None of the axioms like
sovereignty, federalism, etc. which are overarching principles have been violated by the
impugned Constitutional amendments. There is no violation of basic structure of the
Constitution by this amendment.
3.22. Both the tests given in the above mentioned case have been set aside by the 66th
Constitutional Amendment Act, since it has been enacted keeping in mind the equity, justice
and efficiency on the mode of exercise of power by the state. It is evident from the facts of
the case in hand that the enactment of the State GST Act is widely for the benefit of the
public at large.
3.23. In the case of Kuldip Nayar v Union of India50, it has been correctly observed that, the federal
principle is dominant in our Constitution and that principle is one of its basic features, but it

47
Article 1. Name and territory of the Union
(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States
(2) The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule
(3) The territory of India shall comprise
48
Supra note note Note 38
49
AIR (2007) SC 71. 
50
Supra note note Note 43.

Page | 17
 is also equally true that federalism under Indian Constitution leans in favor of a strong
Centre, a feature that militates against the concept of strong federalism and hence there arises
no question of challenging the State GST Act to exist as an independent Act, not to be in
consonance with or not to be controlled by the Central GST Act and other legislations.
3.24. The Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Union of India51, has observed that our
Constitution is not of a true or a traditional pattern of federation. In a similar vein are other
judgments of the Court, like State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Union of India52, that speak of the
conspectus of the provisions that whatever appearance a federal structure our Constitution
may have, judging by the contents of the power which a number of provisions carry with
them and the use made of them, is in its operation, more unitary than federal.
3.25. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Union of India & Anr.53, Justice Untwalia (speaking for
Justice Singhal, Justice Jaswant Singh and for himself), observed as follows: "Strictly
speaking, our Constitution is not of a federal character where separate, independent and
sovereign State could be said to have joined to form a nation as in the United States of
America or as may be the position in some other countries of the world. It is because of that
reason that sometimes it has been characterized as quasi-federal in nature".
3.26. As evident from the facts of the case in hand, from the very beginning, there is only one
major complaint made on the ground that there is too much of centralization and that states
have been reduced to municipalities hence giving the power to the states just for the
namesake, and for just being the signing authority. It is clear that this view is not only an
exaggeration, but is also founded on a misunderstanding that the Constitution of Westeros has
been considered as an absolute one and not a constitution with a strong Centre.
3.27. The case of S. R. Bommai v. U.O.I54 is a landmark where the Centre-State relationship and its
efficiency had been dealt in a better manner in this case. Many reports suggested certain
recommendations on the smooth functioning of the same without any conflicts.
3.28. Although Constitution provides for Parliament and state legislatures to impose reasonable
restrictions on trade if it is felt necessary in public interest, care has been taken in Articles
30255 to 30456 that such powers are exercised with the utmost circumspection and presumably

51
Supra note note Note 42
52
(1978) 1 SCR 1[at pages 4G and 33F.
53
(1978) (2) SCR 1.
54
Supra note note Note 38.
55
Article 302 Power of Parliament to impose restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse Parliament may by
law impose such restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse between one State and another or
within any part of the territory of India as may be required in the public interest.
56
Article 304 Restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse among States Notwithstanding anything in
Article 301 or Article 303, the Legislature of a State may by law.

Page | 18
 in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the enactment of 66th Constitutional Amendment
Act for the levying of GST in place of all the indirect taxes is nowhere violative of the basic
structure doctrine and henceforth of Federalism instead it has been enacted after the need was
felt for its enactment largely in public interest.
3.29. It is submitted that in Hotel Dwarka, Hyderabad v. the Union Of India and Ors.,57 referring to
the structure and framework of the Constitution, the Supreme Court said: “the result was a
constitution which was not true to any traditional pattern of federation. Article 36558 of the
constitution provides for enforcing the directions given by the central government under
Article 25659 of the constitution. The key concept of co-operative federalism is partnership
locking the states and the central government in joint endeavors to pursue commonly shared
goals. Court observed that the Indian Constitution is unlike any that had been called to their
lordships' notice in that it contained an exhaustive enunciation and distribution of powers
between the federal and provincial legislatures. 
3.30. It was humbly submitted in the case of Jindal Stainless Ltd. and Anr. v. Supra note note Note
and Ors.60 that residuary power cannot be so expansively interpreted, as to whittle down the
power of the state legislature that might affect and jeopardize the very federal principle.
The federal nature of the Constitution demands that an interpretation which would allow the
exercise of legislative power by parliament pursuant to the residuary powers vested in it.
Further it is really not necessary to determine whether, in spite of the provisions of the
constitution referred to above, our constitution is federal, quasi-federal or unitary in nature.
3.31. In the Automobile case61, S.K. Das, J. observed that the essential features of a ‘federal or
quasi-federal’ structure were present in the Indian Constitution: “The evolution of a federal
structure or a quasi-federal structure necessarily involved, in the context of the conditions
then prevailing, a distribution of powers and a basic part of our Constitution relates to the
distribution with the three legislative lists in the Seventh Schedule. The Constitution itself
says by Art.162 that India is a Union of States and in interpreting the Constitution one must
57
(1985)58 STC 241AP.
58
Article 365 Effect of failure to comply with, or to give effect to, directions given by the Union Where any
State has failed to comply with or to give effect to any directions given in the exercise of the executive power of
the Union under any directions given in the exercise of the executive power of the Union under any of the
provisions of this Constitution, it shall be lawful for the President to hold that a situation has arisen in which the
government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.
59
256. Obligation of States and the Union The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure
compliance with the laws made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State, and the executive
power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of
India to be necessary for that purpose.
60
(2010) 4 SCC 595.
61
AIR (1962) 1406.
62
Supra note note Note 49.

Page | 19
 keep in the view the essential structure of a federal or quasi federal constitution, namely, that
the units of the Union have also certain powers as has the Union itself…”
3.32. The case of Union of India v. Sankalchand,63 described our Constitution as a federal or as
“quasi –federal”. In Pradeep Jain v. Union of India64, the Apex Court expressed a non-
traditionalistic yet pragmatic opinion while explaining the federal concept in the context of
the unified legal system in India. It was observed that India is not a federal State in the
traditional sense of that term. It is not a compact of sovereign State which have come together
to form a federation by ceding undoubtedly federal features.
3.33. The Constitution of Westeros is a Constitution sui generis. On one hand, the Constitution
contains features which are of high importance for a federal arrangement. At the same time, it
contains provisions which fight for a strong Centre, thus making it quasi federal in nature.
The fact to be appreciated here is that these dual federalism provisions were deliberately
incorporated to be best fit a polyglot country like Westeros.

63
(1978) SCR (1) 423.
64
AIR (1984) 1420.

Page | 20
 PRAYER

Therefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly rayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and declare that:

1. The judgment given by the Hon’ble High Court of The North be upheld.
And/Or
Pass any other order which this Honorable Court may deem fit in the light of justice,
equity and good conscience. For this Act of kindness the Respondent shall as duty bound
forever pray.

All of which is most humbly prayed.

Counsel for Respondents

Page | 21
Page | 22