2018 (9) TMI 1329 - HC - GST

Time Limit for filing Declaration in terms of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules - Case of the petitioner is that the declaration in terms of Rule 117 was filed within time but certain necessary details were not provided - Held that - Without recording separate reasons since we have already given elaborate reasons in the separate judgement, this challenge is not entertained - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to time limit provision in Section 140 of the CGST Act and Rule 117 of CGST Rules for credit declaration.

Analysis:
The judgment discusses the petitions arising from the introduction of Goods and Service Tax and the transitional provisions under Section 140 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture and trading of ceramic goods, challenged the time limit provision for making credit declarations under Rule 117 of the CGST Rules. The court noted that the original time limit of 90 days from the appointed day for credit declaration was extended multiple times, with the latest extension up to 27.12.2017. Subsequently, Sub-Rule (1A) was inserted in Rule 117 to allow for an extension up to 31.03.2019 in case of technical defects preventing the declaration.

In a separate judgment delivered on a related case, the challenge to the vires of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules was rejected. The court upheld the validity of the time limit provision under Rule 117 for making credit declarations, emphasizing the importance of complying with the prescribed procedures within the specified time frame.

The petitioner in the present case contended that although the declaration under Rule 117 was filed within the time limit, certain necessary details were omitted, leading to a denial of benefits under the newly inserted Sub-Rule (1A) of Rule 117. The petitioner also challenged the time limit provision in the Rules. However, the court, without providing separate reasons due to the detailed analysis in the previous judgment, dismissed this challenge, thereby upholding the importance of adherence to the procedural requirements for availing transitional credit benefits under the GST regime.

In conclusion, both petitions were dismissed by the court, affirming the validity of the time limit provisions for credit declaration under Section 140 of the CGST Act and Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, and emphasizing the significance of compliance with the prescribed procedures within the specified timelines to avail transitional credit benefits effectively.