9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1625 - HC - GSTExcess payment of duty - unable to either adjust its input credit available or apply for a refund - vacuum created on account of the suspension of the two forms and the related absence of any clarification - HELD HAT - Counsel for the Revenue submits that he would take appropriate instructions and make submissions in the Court on the next date of hearing. A counter affidavit on all aspects, especially dealing with these issues shall be filed within four weeks. List on 24.07.2018.
Issues:
- Delay in operationalization of GSTR-2 and GSTR-3 - Introduction of GSTR-3B and its impact on input credit and refunds - Economic consequences due to lack of timely reconciliation - Legal vacuum created by the suspension of forms and absence of clarification Analysis: The petitioner raised concerns regarding the delay in the operationalization of GSTR-2 and GSTR-3 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, leading to the introduction of GSTR-3B as an alternative for service providers. The petitioner claimed to have faced economic repercussions, having paid excess duty amounting to approximately ?700 crores, with no ability to adjust input credit or seek refunds due to the provisional nature of GSTR-3B and lack of timely reconciliation mechanisms. The petitioner highlighted Section 54 of the Act, emphasizing the legal vacuum resulting from the suspension of the two forms and the absence of clarifications, causing a significant impasse in compliance and financial operations. The Revenue's counsel agreed to provide submissions in court after seeking appropriate instructions, with a commitment to file a comprehensive counter affidavit within four weeks addressing all aspects, particularly the issues raised by the petitioner. The case was scheduled for the next hearing on 24.07.2018, indicating a proactive approach by the court to address the complexities arising from the operational challenges and legal ambiguities surrounding the GST regime. The court's intervention and the expectation of detailed submissions from both parties signify a diligent judicial process aimed at resolving the issues raised by the petitioner and ensuring compliance with the statutory framework while safeguarding economic interests and procedural fairness.
|
