Amit Pandey Vs Union of India

In the case of Amit Pandey v. Union of India, the petitioner challenged certain provisions of the GST as outlined in the 101st Constitutional Amendment Act. The primary arguments were that these provisions violated the basic structure of the Constitution and that the GST Council's recommendations represented an abdication of parliamentary legislative functions. The Patna High Court dismissed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the grounds that the petitioner, a lawyer, lacked standing to file the petition and that the dealers shifting from VAT to GST could not be considered marginalized in a manner that warranted judicial intervention. Following this, the petitioner filed a special leave petition with the Supreme Court, which upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed the petition, thereby confirming the legality of the aforementioned provisions within the GST framework.