2020 (7) TMI 375 - HC - GST

Constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(C) of the CGST Act 2017 and Rule 86A of the CGST Rules 2017 - ITC credit blocked - supplier/seller does deposit the tax collected from the purchaser over which the bonafide purchaser has no control - HELD THAT - List on 14.07.2020 for interim directions.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(C) of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(C) of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner argued that blocking the ITC credit in the electronic ledger of the purchaser dealer, except for the condition that the errant supplier deposits the tax collected, is unjust as the purchaser has no control over this. The respondents did not defend the vires of the section and the rule. The petitioner's tax liability was extinguished using the credit, but they faced issues with filing returns due to the portal not allowing it without tax payment and blocking of the credit ledger. This hindrance affected the dispatch of goods for a construction project for the Indian Army in Leh-Ladakh. The petitioner requested permission to file returns and issue e-way bills to fulfill the contract, proposing an interim solution to secure revenue while enabling contract execution. The Additional Solicitor General did not oppose this solution, and the court granted two days for the petitioner to submit the proposal in writing before listing the matter for interim directions on a specified date.

This judgment highlights the practical implications of tax laws on business operations, especially in cases where procedural hurdles obstruct contractual obligations. The court's consideration of balancing revenue protection with facilitating legitimate business activities demonstrates a nuanced approach to addressing challenges faced by taxpayers. The petitioner's plea for temporary relief to fulfill their contractual commitments underscores the importance of ensuring a conducive regulatory environment for economic activities. The court's decision to allow time for the petitioner to formalize their proposal indicates a willingness to explore practical solutions within the legal framework, reflecting a pragmatic approach to dispute resolution. The engagement of both parties and the court's receptiveness to interim measures reflect a collaborative effort to address immediate concerns while upholding the principles of tax compliance and business continuity.