9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 370 - HC - GSTSeeking quashing the Order-in-Original passed by the Resp-4 u/s 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 - quashing the Demand Order in GST 07 by the Resp-4 of the CGST Act, 2017 - no excess claim of ITC for the period 2019-20 as it is already denied for the period 2017-18 - HELD THAT - A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the issue in controversy involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of M/S. SADHANA ENVIRO ENGINEERING SERVICES VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX; THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX BENGALURU; UNION OF INDIA; STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BANGALORE 2024 (9) TMI 1648 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT where it was held that ' In view of the aforesaid amendment by inserting Section 16 (5) to the CGST / KGST Act, the present petition deserves to be disposed of relegating the parties to the original authority to implement and give effect to the said provisions after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hearing them and proceed further in accordance with law and by issuing certain directions in this regard.' In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the judgment of this Court in M/s. Sadhana Enviro Engineering s case, the present petition also deserves to be allowed and disposed of in terms of the said judgment. Petition allowed.
Issues:
Petitioner seeks writs to quash Order-in-Original and Demand Order under CGST Act, 2017 for Assessment Year 2019-20, declaration of no excess claim of ITC, and other reliefs. The main issue involves the applicability of Section 16(5) of CGST Act inserted by "The Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024" regarding the time limit for availing input tax credit. Analysis: 1. Petitioner's Reliefs: The petitioner sought several reliefs, including quashing the Order-in-Original and Demand Order under CGST Act, 2017 for the Assessment Year 2019-20. Additionally, the petitioner requested a Writ of Declaration declaring no excess claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the period 2019-20. The petitioner also sought any other writ, direction, or orders deemed fit by the court in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Applicability of Section 16(5) of CGST Act: The judgment highlighted the insertion of Section 16(5) into the CGST Act by "The Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024," extending the time limit for availing input tax credit for supplies pertaining to the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21 until the thirtieth day of November, 2021. The court emphasized that this provision was directly relevant to the present case and should be considered. 3. Contentions of the Parties: The petitioner's senior counsel argued that the amended provision in Section 16(5) should be implemented without delving into other contentions raised by the petitioner. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents, including revenue and the State, acknowledged the applicability of Section 16(5) and agreed that the time limit for availing input tax credit had been extended until 30.11.2021. 4. Court's Decision: The court, considering the insertion of Section 16(5) and in line with the judgment in a similar case, directed the parties to the original authority to implement the amended provisions within a stipulated time frame. The court disposed of the petition, relegating the parties to the stage of the show cause notice issued by the respondents and quashing the blocking of the petitioner's Input Tax Credit (ITC) ledger. The court also ordered the release of the credit balance in the petitioner's ITC ledger/account without delay. 5. Final Orders: The court disposed of the petition in terms of the judgment in a previous case, quashing the impugned Order and Summary, and directing the respondents to give effect to the amended provisions of Section 16(5) within a month. The court kept all other contentions and challenges to statutory provisions open without expressing any opinion on them. In conclusion, the judgment primarily revolved around the applicability of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, emphasizing the extension of the time limit for availing input tax credit and directing the parties to comply with the amended provisions within a specified timeframe.
|
