Bhiben Patel v State of Gujarat

• Various petitions challenged aspects of the GST framework including the constitutional validity of certain provisions
• Questions arose regarding the federal structure and whether the GST Council's recommendations were binding on States
• The 101st Constitutional Amendment introduced a concurrent taxing power and the GST Council mechanism
• States raised concerns about loss of fiscal autonomy

1. Whether the GST Council's recommendations are binding on Parliament and State legislatures
2. Whether the 101st Amendment preserves fiscal federalism
3. Constitutional validity of the GST levy framework

• The GST Council is a recommendatory body; its recommendations are persuasive but not binding
• State legislatures retain their legislative power to enact GST law with or without deviations from Council recommendations
• The 101st Amendment preserves cooperative federalism; it does not subordinate State legislative power to the Council
• The GST framework is constitutionally valid

Article 246A confers concurrent power on Parliament and State legislatures. The GST Council (Article 279A) facilitates harmonization but does not supersede legislative competence. Treating recommendations as binding would effectively convert the Council into a super-legislature, destroying the federal fabric. Cooperative federalism requires persuasion, not compulsion.