Moot Preposition on Constitutional law- III

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE

SUPREME COURT OF URABANA

WRIT PETITION NO: ___/2021

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

ASSOCIATION OF TRADERS AND OTHERS

(PETITIONER)
V.

UNION OF URBANA
(RESPONDENT)

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA CLAIMING

THAT THR STATE WAS NEGLIGENT IN PROVISING HIM RIGHT TO HEALTH.

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANTS

Council on behalf of the Appellants

Sejal Patidar - S1182200161

1
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF CONTENT

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………………....i
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………………….ii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………………iii
STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………….……………………………………………………..iv
STATEMENT OF ISSUE …….………………………...……………………………………………v
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………………….vi
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………………….vii
ISSUE 1: Whether exemption of certain goods out of the purview of GST is grounded on some
reasonable classification or is arbitrary in nature and therefore unconstitutional?
ISSUE 2: Does the GST Act pave way for excessive delegation of powers & is therefore
unconstitutional?
ISSUE 3: Whether Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2017 is against the
federal setup of the Urbana and is therefore unconstitutional?
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………………..vi

2
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

HON’BLE HONOURABLE

ORS OTHERS

ART. ARTICLE

S.C SUPREME COURT

V./VS. VERSUS

3
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTORY COMPLICATIONS
Constitution of Urbana, 1950
Central Goods & Service Act, 2017
State Goods & Service Act, 2017
Intra- State Goods & Service Act, 2017
BOOKS

WEBSITES
hhttp://www.manupatra.com
hhttp://www.Urbanakanoon.com
hhttp://www.lexisnexis.com
hhttp://www.lawyerscluburbana.com
hhttp://www.westlaw.com
hhttp://www.lawindia.com
CASE LAW REFERENCE

& Others Vs. State of West

Bengal & Anoth
1. Saurabh Chaudhari v Union Of India, AIR 2004SC 2212
2. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Tendolkar, 1958 AIR 538, 1959 SCR 279
3. Harishankar Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1954 AIR 465, 1955 SCR 313
4. Kishan Prakash Sharma v. Union of India, 2001(3) TMI 1018 SC
5. Garewal v. the State of Punjab, AIR 1956, SC 512
6. Banarsidas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1958, SC 909, P.913

4
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent humbly submits this memorandum filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Urbana as this court has jurisdiction of writ petition to try and entertain this case under Article 32 of
the Constitution of Urbana, 1950.

Article 32 in the Constitution of Urbana

5
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have the power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be
appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction
all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by
this Constitution

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF FACTS

STATEMENT OF FACTS

6
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF ISSUE

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

I. Whether exemption of certain goods out of the purview of GST is grounded on

some reasonable classification or is arbitrary in nature and therefore
unconstitutional?

II. Does the GST Act pave way for excessive delegation of powers & is therefore
unconstitutional?

III. Whether Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2017 is against
the federal setup of the Urbana and is therefore unconstitutional?

7
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1: Whether exemption of certain goods out of the purview of GST is grounded on some
reasonable classification or is arbitrary in nature and therefore unconstitutional?
It is humbly submitted on the behalf of the respondent that the exemption of certain goods and
services out of the preview of GST is founded on the reasonable classification provided under Article
14 the Constitution of Urbana and this exemption has passed the test of reasonable classification also
provided under the same Article 14 of the same constitution and it is not arbitrary and
unconstitutional
Issue 2: Whether GST Act paves way for excessive delegation of powers & is therefore
unconstitutional?
It is humbly submitted on behalf of the respondent that the power delegated under section 171 of the
central GST Act is a permissible delegation which means those powers which can be delegated by
parliament come into the preview of the Doctrine of permissible limits. Delegated delegation is also
known as bye-laws and the power to make ‘bye-laws’ is conferred on local authorities and statutory
or other undertakings “for regulating the conduct of persons within their areas or resorting to their
undertaking”. If the rules and regulations are also made under the enabling Act, the bye-laws are
generally made subordinate to them.
Issue 3: Whether Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2017 is against the
federal setup of the Urbana and is therefore unconstitutional?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the (one hundred and first amendment) Act,
2017 is not against the Federal set up of Urbana. When we considered the debate on the federal
structure of the Urbana then there were different views of different scholars and jurists and drafters
of the Urbana Constitution.

8
The federalism in Urbana– Sir Ivor Jennings was of the view that Urbana has a federation with a
strong centralizing policy. In the other words, the constitution of Urbana is neither purely federal nor
unitary, but it is a combination of both. It is often defined to be quasi-federal in nature.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. Whether exemption of certain goods out of the purview of GST is grounded on

some reasonable classification or is arbitrary in nature and therefore
unconstitutional?

II. Does the GST Act pave way for excessive delegation of powers & is therefore
unconstitutional?

III. Whether Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2017 is against
the federal setup of the Urbana and is therefore unconstitutional?

9
10
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT PRAYER

PRAYER

Therefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
most humbly prayed and implored before the hon’ble court that it may be graciously pleased to
declared that:

The court may be pleased to pass any other decree, which the court may deem fit in the light of
justice, equity and good conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

11
12