Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/S A.P. Iron Traders, filed this writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 174(2) of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the repeal-and-savings provision. Counsel for both sides agreed that the controversy was already covered by the Division Bench's earlier decision in Tecnimont Spa India Project Office vs. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No.18967 of 2020 and connected cases, decided on 10.12.2024, where similar challenges had been disposed of pending the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision in T.S. Belaraman. In Tecnimont Spa, the Court had noted that since the Supreme Court had granted leave in the Belaraman matter, final adjudication of the Section 174(2) challenge would have to be made by the Apex Court, and had directed that interim orders already passed in the connected cases would continue to operate until the SLP was decided.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the constitutional challenge to Section 174(2) of the Punjab GST Act, 2017 could be independently adjudicated by the High Court in view of the pending Supreme Court proceedings in T.S. Belaraman.
  2. Whether the interim protection already granted in the Tecnimont Spa batch should continue to operate in the present petition.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner's challenge to Section 174(2) of the Punjab GST Act, 2017 raised the identical controversy already covered by the Tecnimont Spa batch of petitions.
  • Counsel agreed the matter could be disposed of on the same terms as Tecnimont Spa, with the benefit of continuing interim protection pending the Supreme Court's decision.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The State's counsel was similarly ad idem that the controversy stood covered by the Tecnimont Spa order and did not press for a separate adjudication.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court noted that in Tecnimont Spa, since the Supreme Court had granted leave in T.S. Belaraman, final adjudication of the challenge to Section 174(2) would have to be made by the Apex Court.
  • The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order dated 10.12.2024 passed in Tecnimont Spa India Project Office and other connected cases, with the challenge to Section 174(2) kept subject to the final outcome of the Supreme Court's decision in T.S. Belaraman.
  • Interim orders passed by the Court in the connected matters were directed to continue to operate until the SLP is decided, subject to the Supreme Court's final ruling.
  • Pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.

Important Clarification

  • Where the constitutional validity of a State GST transitional/repeal provision such as Section 174(2) is already sub judice before the Supreme Court in a connected SLP, High Courts will ordinarily decline independent adjudication and instead keep the challenge pending the Apex Court's decision, while continuing existing interim protection.
  • This order records no independent reasoning on the merits of the vires challenge; it merely extends the Tecnimont Spa disposition, and readers tracking the underlying constitutional question should follow the outcome of the SLP in T.S. Belaraman before the Supreme Court.

Sections Involved

  • Section 174(2), Punjab GST Act 2017 — repeal and savings clause preserving proceedings initiated under the erstwhile VAT law.
  • Article 226/227, Constitution of India — writ jurisdiction invoked to challenge the provision.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with directions and without a final ruling on the merits; neither the assessee nor the department obtained a decisive outcome, as the constitutional question was left open pending the Supreme Court's decision in T.S. Belaraman, with existing interim protection continuing to operate.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
  • Case No.: CWP-21647-2026 (O&M)
  • CNR: Not available
  • Coram: Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor
  • Decision Date: 17-07-2026
  • Disposal Nature: Disposed of in terms of Tecnimont Spa precedent, subject to pending SLP outcome

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.