9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 876 - HC - GSTRefund of Integrated tax - no export of any goods after 05.09.2019 on payment of integrated tax - Validity of Sub Rule (10) of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act - ultra vires Sections 54 and 164 of the CGST Act - 2017 - ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - No recovery shall be effected on the tax paid for the goods exported and refunded upto 05.09.2019, till the next date of hearing - Noticing the fact that many such matters are pending from the year 2019 and there is an urgency made out by learned advocate Mr. Paresh Dave, let all those matters be posted for hearing on 30.09.2021.
Issues:
Challenge to Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, entitlement to pay Integrated Tax on exported goods, quashing of proceedings initiated against the petitioner, interim relief sought, pending matters from 2019, urgency in addressing the issues. Analysis: The petitioner approached the court seeking to challenge Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules. The prayers included issuing a writ of mandamus to strike down the rule as ultra vires certain sections and articles of the Constitution. Additionally, the petitioner requested a writ to declare entitlement to pay Integrated Tax on exported goods and claim refunds, as well as to quash proceedings initiated against them via specific summons. An interim relief was also sought to restrain coercive recovery actions until the next hearing date. The court heard the arguments presented by the petitioner's advocates, Mr. Paresh Dave and Mr. Amal Dave, who highlighted similar issues pending since 2019. An urgency was noted, leading to the decision to schedule all related matters for a hearing on 30.09.2021. Both sides were directed to exchange written submissions and relevant authorities to be relied upon. Furthermore, the presence of the Central Government Standing Counsel, Mr. Priyank Lodha, was acknowledged, and he was instructed to prepare the reply in advance to facilitate a comprehensive discussion during the upcoming hearing. Direct service and service by speed post were permitted for efficient communication in the case. The court's proactive approach aimed to address the pending matters promptly and ensure a fair and thorough consideration of the issues raised by the petitioner.
|
