9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 214 - HC - GSTConstitutional validity of Section 16(2) (c) of the CGST Act, 2017/SGST Act, 2017 - allowability of claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) subject to discharge of GST liability by the supplier - interim order awaited - HELD THAT - Since constitutionality of the provision of State GST Act also has been challenged, let the State of West Bengal be added as a party respondent and also State GST authority concerned be impleaded as an added respondent and the copy of this writ petition be served upon the learned Advocate General and State GST authority concerned. Pendency of this writ petition will not prevent the petitioner from making any representation against the audit report appearing at page 53 of the writ petition before the respondent concerned which shall be considered by the authority concerned in accordance with law. List this matter for final hearing after seven weeks.
Issues: Constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017/SGST Act, 2017; Challenge to the provision of State GST Act; Addition of State of West Bengal as a party respondent; Representation against audit report.
The judgment by the High Court of Calcutta, delivered by Justice MD. Nizamuddin, pertains to the challenge of the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017/SGST Act, 2017. The Court, after hearing the arguments from both parties, decided not to pass any interim order due to the constitutional challenge. The Court directed the respondents to file an affidavit in opposition within four weeks, with the petitioner given two weeks thereafter to file a reply. Additionally, as the constitutionality of the State GST Act provision was also contested, the State of West Bengal was ordered to be added as a party respondent, and the State GST authority concerned to be impleaded as an added respondent. The Court instructed the writ petition to be served upon the learned Advocate General and State GST authority concerned. The petitioner was allowed to make representations against the audit report mentioned in the petition, with an assurance that it would be considered by the authority in accordance with the law. The matter was listed for final hearing after seven weeks, with a requirement for both parties to prepare short written notes of arguments for the hearing.
|
