9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 174 - HC - GSTInput Tax Credit (ITC) - GST on the supplied items has already been paid by the suppliers - Challenging the validity of Section 16(2)(aa), Section 16(2)(c) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 36(4) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not want to press the reliefs prayed for declaring Section 16(2)(aa), 16(2)(c) of the Act of 2017 and Rule 36(4) of the Rules of 2017 as unconstitutional with a further prayer that the writ petition may be disposed of while quashing the impugned order dated 27.12.2021 with a direction to the respondent No.2 to pass a fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since learned counsel for the petitioner is not pressing the reliefs for declaring the provisions of Section 16(2)(aa), 16(2)(c) of the Act of 2017 and Rule 36(4) of the Rules of 2017 as unconstitutional, the order dated 27.12.2021 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to pass a fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of.
Issues involved:
The validity of Section 16(2)(aa), Section 16(2)(c) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 36(4) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 challenged by the petitioner-firm. The order dated 27.12.2021 passed by respondent No.2 regarding Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner is also challenged. Validity of Section 16(2)(aa), Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 36(4): The petitioner-firm, engaged in road construction business, challenged the validity of certain sections of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and related rules. The petitioner requested certain materials from a supplier on which GST was payable. Despite the supplier having already paid GST on the supplied items, respondent No.2 ordered the return of Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner. Respondent's counsel admitted the oversight and requested a remand for fresh adjudication considering the GST payment by the suppliers. The petitioner, not pressing for a declaration of unconstitutionality of the provisions, sought the quashing of the impugned order dated 27.12.2021 and a direction for a fresh order with a hearing opportunity. Consequently, the order dated 27.12.2021 was quashed, and respondent No.2 was directed to pass a fresh order after granting a hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly. Stay petition: The stay petition was also disposed of in conjunction with the main writ petition.
|
