Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9K views

    In The Supreme Court of The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

    Uploaded by

    lankaCnews
    1. Udaya Prabhath Gammanpila, a Sri Lankan citizen and attorney-at-law, has filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act of 2016. 2. The petition argues that several clauses of the VAT amendment bill violate provisions of the Sri Lankan constitution related to equality, non-discrimination, and fundamental rights. 3. Specifically, the petition takes issue with clauses that remove the exemption of healthcare services from VAT, define the value of healthcare services in an illogical way, apply amendments retrospectively, and legalize past unlawful VAT collections.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    In The Supreme Court of The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

    Uploaded by

    lankaCnews
    9K views4 pages
    1. Udaya Prabhath Gammanpila, a Sri Lankan citizen and attorney-at-law, has filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act of 2016. 2. The petition argues that several clauses of the VAT amendment bill violate provisions of the Sri Lankan constitution related to equality, non-discrimination, and fundamental rights. 3. Specifically, the petition takes issue with clauses that remove the exemption of healthcare services from VAT, define the value of healthcare services in an illogical way, apply amendments retrospectively, and legalize past unlawful VAT collections.

    Original Description:

    Petition

    Original Title

    Petition

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Udaya Prabhath Gammanpila, a Sri Lankan citizen and attorney-at-law, has filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act of 2016. 2. The petition argues that several clauses of the VAT amendment bill violate provisions of the Sri Lankan constitution related to equality, non-discrimination, and fundamental rights. 3. Specifically, the petition takes issue with clauses that remove the exemption of healthcare services from VAT, define the value of healthcare services in an illogical way, apply amendments retrospectively, and legalize past unlawful VAT collections.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    9K views4 pages

    In The Supreme Court of The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

    Uploaded by

    lankaCnews
    1. Udaya Prabhath Gammanpila, a Sri Lankan citizen and attorney-at-law, has filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act of 2016. 2. The petition argues that several clauses of the VAT amendment bill violate provisions of the Sri Lankan constitution related to equality, non-discrimination, and fundamental rights. 3. Specifically, the petition takes issue with clauses that remove the exemption of healthcare services from VAT, define the value of healthcare services in an illogical way, apply amendments retrospectively, and legalize past unlawful VAT collections.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 4
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The petitioner, a member of parliament, is challenging certain clauses of the Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, No. of 2016 on grounds that they violate provisions of the Sri Lankan constitution.

    The petitioner argues that clauses 17, 4, 13 and 18 of the bill are unconstitutional as they remove healthcare service exemptions, arbitrarily classify healthcare services, apply amendments retrospectively, and purport to legalize unlawful tax collections respectively.

    Clauses 1-3, 5-16 of the bill are also argued to be unconstitutional by the petitioner.

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST

    REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA

    In the matter of an application


    under Article 121 against a Bill titled
    "Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act,
    No.
    of 2016"

    Udaya Prabhath Gammanpila,


    65/14G,Wickremasinghe Mawatha
    Kumaragewatta Road
    Pelawatta
    Battaramulla
    SC (SD) Appl. No.

    /2016
    PETITIONER

    Vs.

    Honourable Attorney-General,
    Attorney-General's Department,
    Colombo 12.
    RESPONDENT

    TO HIS LORDSHIP THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THEIR LORDSHIPS AND THE
    OTHER HONOURABLE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
    DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA

    On this 04th day of October, 2016.

    The Petition of the Petitioner above-named appearing by Ms. Anusha


    Perusinghe, his Registered Attorney-at-Law, states as follows:
    1. The Petitioner is a citizen of Sri Lanka, and an Attorney-at-Law of the
    Supreme Court.

    2. The Petitioner is the founder and General Secretary of the Political party
    called and known as Pivithuru Hela Urumaya and presently a Member of
    Parliament, representing the United Peoples Freedom Alliance.
    3. The Petitioner states that he has a duty in terms of Article 28 of the
    Constitution, as a person living in Sri Lanka, inter-alia toa. Uphold and defend the constitution and Law;
    b. Further the National interest and;
    c. Preserve and protect public property and to combat misuse and waste
    of public property.
    4. In the circumstances the Petitioner states that he has sufficient public
    interest with regard to the grievances pertaining to which this application
    relates and to seek the reliefs sought for in this application.
    5. The Petitioner states that the Attorney-General is made a Respondent to this
    application under and in terms of Article 134(1) of the Constitution.
    6. The Petitioner states that a Bill titled "Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act,
    No.
    of 2016" has been gazetted on 13.09.2016 on the directions of the
    Minister of Finance, and the same has been placed on the order paper of
    Parliament on 04.10.2016.
    Copies of the said Bill in English and Sinhala are annexed hereto marked X1 and X2
    respectively.

    7. The Petitioner states that the Bill is described in the long title as "AN ACT TO
    AMEND THE VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, NO. 14 OF 2002 ".
    8. The Petitioner states that clauses 17, 4, 13 and 18 of the said Bill, are in
    violation of Articles 3, 4(d), 12(1), 12(2), and 14(1)(g) of the Constitution
    inasmuch as;
    a. Clause 17 (2)(c) removes healthcare services provided by medical
    institutions or professionally qualified persons from the list of
    exempted items commencing from the date on which the said Bill
    comes into force,
    b. Clause 4 (15) of the said Bill purports that the "value of supply of
    healthcare services shall be the value of such supply less the cost of
    diagnostic tests, dialysis and, services provided by the Out Patient
    Department but excluding medical consultation services, which
    description and/or classification has no rational nor reasonable
    objective basis and is illogical and unreasonable, discriminatory and
    arbitrary.
    2

    c. Clause 13 (2) of the said Bill amends subsection (3) of Section 25C of
    the principal enactment with retrospective operation with no rational
    nor reasonable objective basis and is further illegal, illogical and
    unreasonable, discriminatory and arbitrary.
    d. Clause 18 of the said Bill purports to legalize the unlawful collection of
    Value Added Tax from 01.01.2016 until the date on which the said Bill
    comes into operation with no rational nor reasonable objective basis
    and is further illegal, unreasonable, discriminatory and arbitrary.

    9. The Petitioner further states that Clauses 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,


    14, 15 and 16 of the said Bill are in violation of Articles 3, 4(d), 12(1), 12(2),
    and 14(1)(g) of the Constitution.
    10.The Petitioner states that in the aforesaid circumstances, the entire Bill
    and/or any one or more of the Clauses and/or Sections thereof cannot
    become law unless passed by two-thirds of the whole number of the
    Members of Parliament and approved by the People at a referendum.
    11.The Petitioner states that he has not invoked the jurisdiction of Your
    Lordships' Court previously in respect of matters stated herein.
    12.The Petitioner states that a copy of this Petition and documents has been
    dispatched to the Honourable Speaker through registered post.
    WHEREFORE, THE PETITIONER RESPECTFULLY PRAYS THAT YOUR LORDSHIPS'
    COURT BE PLEASED TO:
    a) Hear the Petitioner;
    b) Declare that Clauses 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 and/or 5 and/or 6 and/or
    7 and/or 8 and/or 9 and/or 10 and/or 11 and/or 12 and/or 13 and/or 14
    and/or 15 and/or 16 and/or 17 and/or 18 of the said Bill are in violation of
    Articles 3, 4(d), 12(1), 12(2), and 14(1)(g) of the Constitution, and therefore
    require to be passed by not less than two-thirds of the whole number of
    members of Parliament as required under Article 84(2) and approved by the
    people at a Referendum by virtue of provisions of Article 83;
    c) Grant costs,
    d) Such other and further relief as Your Lordships' Court shall seem meet.

    Registered Attorney- at- Law for the Petitioner

    You might also like