2023 (10) TMI 984 - HC - GST

Constitutional Validity of Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - seeking permission to file FORM TRAN-1 and to allow Petitioner to carry forward credit to its electronic credit ledger under the GST regime - to allow the revision of the last return under the service tax law in order to comply with the provisions of Section 140(1) of the CGST Act - seeking to declare the para 2(1)(d)(i) (EEC) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 substituted by the Notification No. 16/2017-ST dated 13th April, 2017 ultra vires the Finance Act, 1994 as well as Constitution of India. HELD THAT - These petitions ought to be disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh consolidated petition so that all issues of challenge intended to be urged by the Petitioner which are required to be gone into can be subject matter of one proceeding instead of having a piecemeal adjudication on both these petitions.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are challenges to Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, seeking refund under a notification dated 13 April 2017, and the consequential reliefs related to the refund amount.

Challenge to Rule 117 of CGST Rules:
The petitioner challenged Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, seeking a declaration that it is ultra vires the Parent Act and requesting to strike down the rule. The petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus to allow filing FORM TRAN-1 and carry forward credit under the GST regime. The court noted that the challenge to Rule 117 stands concluded, but a separate cause of action arose from an order dated 27 February 2023. The petitioner indicated intent to challenge the said order separately.

Refund under Notification dated 13 April 2017:
The petitioner sought a refund under a notification dated 13 April 2017, challenging para 2(1)(d)(i)(EEC) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, as substituted by Notification No. 16/2017-ST. The court found that prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the petition became infructuous based on previous orders. The remaining issue for adjudication was the challenge to para 2(1)(d)(i)(EEC) and the claim for a refund of Rs. 48,36,805.

Separate Petition for Order dated 27 February 2023:
A separate petition was filed challenging an order dated 27 February 2023, seeking to quash and set aside the said order. The petitioner requested a writ of mandamus to credit the Electronic Credit Ledger with transitional credit of Rs. 43,06,561. The court observed that both petitions shared a common grievance and should be disposed of together. It granted liberty to file a fresh consolidated petition to address all issues in one proceeding, avoiding piecemeal adjudication.

Consolidated Petition and Disposal:
Both petitions were disposed of with liberty for the petitioner to file a fresh consolidated petition to present all challenges in a comprehensive manner. The court kept all contentions of the parties open and concluded the judgment without imposing any costs.