JUDGMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Para Nos.THE CHALLENGE1-3ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS4-34ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 35-72ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE LEARNED AMICUS CURIAE73-85 COURT'S REASONING 86-164 Principles for adjudicating the constitutionality of an enactment 86-88 Court's approach while dealing with tax or economic laws 89Act, 2017 marks a paradigm shift in the field of indirect taxes90-94 Section 171 mandates that tax foregone has to be passed on as a commensurate reduction in price 95-102 Section 171 falls within the law-making power of the Parliament under Article 246A103-107 Section 171 lays out a clear legislative policy and does not delegate any essential legislative function108-115 Impugned provisions are not a price fixing mechanism. They do not violate either Article 19(1)(g) or Article 300A of the Constitution116-121 Reference to anti-profiteering provisions of Australia and Malaysia is misconceived122-123 No fixed/uniform method or mathematical formula can be laid down for determining profiteering 124-129It is the prerogrative of the legislature to decide how the benefit is to be passed on to the consumers130-134 Act 2017 rightly does not fix a ti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document