9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 229 - HC - GSTChallenge to N/N. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 issued by the first respondent and the N/N. II(2)/CTR-532 (d-4)/2017 dated 29.06.2017 - Jurisdiction of GST Council - challenge on the ground that rate fixation is a function assigned to the GST Council under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and that the GST Council meetings did not recommend the inclusion of residuary entry 453. HELD THAT - List the matter on 04.04.2024.
Issues:
Challenge to notification No.1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and Notification No.II(2)/CTR-532 (d-4)/2017, Appellate order dated 18.08.2023. Analysis: 1. The primary challenge in this case is against the notification No.1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and Notification No.II(2)/CTR-532 (d-4)/2017 issued by the respondents. The petitioner argues that rate fixation falls under the jurisdiction of the GST Council as per the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It is contended that the GST Council did not recommend the inclusion of residuary entry 453, which forms the basis of the challenge. 2. The petitioner has remitted a total sum of Rs. 12,11,97,175/- towards the disputed tax amount of Rs. 12,23,79,681/-. The counsel for the petitioner highlighted this fact and argued that a prima facie case has been established. Consequently, an order of interim stay of all further proceedings following the appellate order dated 18.08.2023 has been requested until the matter is heard in detail in the next hearing. 3. During the proceedings, Mr. Sai Srujan Tayi, learned senior standing counsel, accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1, 4, and 5. Mr. P. Balathandayutham, learned Special Government Pleader, accepted notice on behalf of the second respondent. Additionally, Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), accepted notice on behalf of the third respondent. The case has been listed for the next hearing on 04.04.2024. This judgment reflects a legal challenge to the notifications issued by the respondents concerning tax rates and the jurisdiction of the GST Council. The petitioner's argument regarding the GST Council's role in rate fixation and the interim stay of proceedings pending further hearings are crucial aspects of the case. The acceptance of notice by the counsels representing the respondents indicates the formal acknowledgment of the legal proceedings. The next hearing date has been set to continue the deliberations on the matter.
|
