9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 275 - HC - GSTRectification of mistake - mistake apparent on the face of record or not - Challenge to N/N. 54/2018 Central Tax dated 9th October, 2018 which finally substituted Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules with effect from 9th October, 2018 - It is the case of the applicant that there are various mistakes apparent on record and therefore, this application is filed under section 114 read with Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 for review of the CAV judgment in 2020 (10) TMI 1099 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - HELD THAT - The mistakes which are apparent on record are rectified and CAV judgment dated 20th October, 2020 therefore, now shall stand corrected accordingly. Registry to issue fresh writ accordingly. Misc. Civil Application stands disposed of.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the amendment made by Notification No. 54/2018 dated 9th October 2018 to sub-rule (10) of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules. 2. Mistakes apparent on record in the CAV judgment dated 20th October 2020. 3. Effective date of Notification No. 54/2018. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Amendment Made by Notification No. 54/2018 The core issue addressed in the judgment is whether the amendment made by Notification No. 54/2018 dated 9th October 2018, which amends sub-rule (10) of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, is valid. The judgment examines the scheme of Advance Authorization Licenses and the impact of various notifications on the refund of Integrated Tax paid on exports of goods or services. The court concludes that Notification No. 54/2018 is valid and should be applied prospectively from 9th October 2018, rather than retrospectively from 23rd October 2017. 2. Mistakes Apparent on Record in the CAV Judgment The applicant pointed out several mistakes in the CAV judgment dated 20th October 2020, which were acknowledged by the court. These mistakes included incorrect recording of effective dates of various notifications and misinterpretation of the provisions of Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules. The court rectified these mistakes by deleting and substituting the erroneous dates and interpretations. For instance: - In para 4.4, the words "with effect from 23rd October, 2017" were replaced with "with effect from 9th October, 2018." - In para 8.10, the word "retrospectively" was substituted with "prospectively," and the effective date was corrected to 9th October 2018. 3. Effective Date of Notification No. 54/2018 The judgment clarifies that Notification No. 54/2018 should be effective from 9th October 2018, not from 23rd October 2017. This correction was necessary because the original CAV judgment incorrectly stated that the notification was effective from 23rd October 2017. The court emphasized that the effective date of Notification No. 54/2018 is crucial for determining the eligibility of refund claims under Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules. Conclusion The court acknowledged and rectified the mistakes apparent on record in the CAV judgment dated 20th October 2020. The corrected judgment now accurately reflects that Notification No. 54/2018 is valid and effective from 9th October 2018. The court's decision ensures that the amendments to Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules are applied prospectively, thereby providing clarity and avoiding any retrospective application issues. The Misc. Civil Application and related civil applications were disposed of accordingly.
|
