9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 863 - HC - GSTConstitutional Validity - Sr. No. 9(ii) of the N/N. 8/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - Sr. No. 10 of the Notification No. 10/2017 Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - levy of Integrated-tax / IGST - services by way of transportation of goods by vessel from a place outside India, up to custom station of clearance of India - Importer within meaning of Section 2(26) of the Custom Act, 1962 deemed as recipient of service - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the case of MOHIT MINERALS PVT LTD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 1 OTHER 2020 (1) TMI 974 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT where it was held that impugned Notification No.8/2017 Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 and the Entry 10 of the N/N.10/2017 Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 are declared as ultra vires the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as they lack legislative competency. Both the Notifications are hereby declared to be unconstitutional. This petition is disposed of in terms of the decisions given by the Gujarat High Court in Mohit Minerals Private Limited.
Issues:
Challenge to the constitutional validity of specific notifications under the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Claim for refund of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) paid. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the constitutional validity of certain notifications related to the levy of Integrated-tax on services by way of transportation of goods by vessel from outside India. The petitioner sought relief by declaring the notifications as unconstitutional and ultra vires to the provisions of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner also challenged the classification of 'Importer' as 'recipient' of service under a different notification. The petitioner relied on judgments by the Gujarat High Court in similar cases to support their claims. The petitioner specifically pressed for reliefs related to the above challenges, citing precedents from the Gujarat High Court. The counsel for the petitioner clarified that other reliefs sought in the petition were not being pressed. The respondents did not contest that the issues in the present case were covered by the Gujarat High Court decisions referred to by the petitioner. However, the respondents mentioned that the Gujarat High Court judgment in one of the cases was under challenge before the Apex Court. The Gujarat High Court had previously ruled in cases similar to the present one, declaring specific notifications as ultra vires the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The judgments directed the authorities to process refund claims for IGST paid by the petitioners. In light of the submissions and the Gujarat High Court decisions, the High Court of Rajasthan disposed of the petition, aligning with the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in the relevant cases. Therefore, the High Court upheld the petitioner's challenge to the notifications and entitlement to a refund based on the precedents set by the Gujarat High Court in similar matters. The court's decision was in line with the judgments that found the notifications to be unconstitutional and directed the refund of IGST paid by the petitioners.
|
