|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 15141 Records
-
2025 (3) TMI 1092
Retrospective application of amendment to Rule 108 of the GST Rules, 2017, which altered the requirements for submitting a certified copy of the order appealed against - failure to submit a certified copy of the order within the specified period, as per the unamended Rule 108 - differences in various returns - HELD THAT:- It is admitted that the appeal against the order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the Proper Officer was preferred on 15.11.2022. It is also not in dispute that along with the appeal, copy of the order appealed against was also filed. The said fact has specifically been mentioned in paragraph no. 22 of the writ petition, which has not been denied by the State in paragraph no. 11 of the counter affidavit. During the pendency of the appeal, subsequent amendment to rule 108 came on 16.12.2022.
As per the unamended rule 108 (3) of the Rules, the time of filing certified copy of the order appealed against was within 7 days of submission of appeal; whereas, as per the amended rule 108(3) of the Rules, where the decision and order against is not uploaded on the common portal, then the party shall submit certified copy of the said decision within 7 days - Bare conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions clearly shows that in the event certified copy of the order appealed against is not uploaded along with the appeal through e-mode, then within 7 days of filing of the appeal, a self-certified copy of the order was supposed to be filed within 7 days.
The issue in hand has already been decided by the Delhi High Court in Chegg India Private Limited [2024 (12) TMI 1354 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein, the Court has held that the condition for physically filing the certified copy is not mandatory, but procedural in nature. If an appeal is preferred along with all documents and the copy of the appeal, the filing of certified copy is not required.
Similarly, in the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the appeal, which was preferred on 15.11.2022, was without order appealed against. Once this fact is not in dispute, the issue in hand is covered by the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Chegg India Private Limited.
Conclusion - i) The condition for physically filing the certified copy is not mandatory, but procedural in nature. ii) The amendment to Rule 108 is procedural and applies retrospectively, allowing appeals filed electronically within the limitation period to be considered valid despite delays in submitting a certified copy.
The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority, i.e., the Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 (Appeal), State Tax, Noida, for considering the appeal on merit - petition allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1091
Dismissal of appeal on technical grounds - non-constitution of Tribunal - failure to comply with the legal mandate of making the pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- Noting that the petitioner’s appeal has been rejected on technical grounds and at present the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the said Act is yet to be constituted, one more opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to make payment of the pre-deposit as required under Section 107(6) of the said Act.
The order dated 22nd May, 2024 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the petitioner’s appeal is set aside - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1032
Seeking grant of regular bail - availing ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the basis of fake invoices received from non-operational firms - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that the entire case of the prosecution is founded upon the documentary material and as far as the alleged ineligible availment of Input Tax Credit of Rs. 31.18 crores is concerned, the same is part of the tax returns filed by the applicant/firm M/s Shreeji Metals. Further, during the course of hearing, it is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Union of India that the account of M/s Shreeji Metals was attached vide order dated 07.10.2024, but subsequently, it was liberated vide order dated 08.11.2024, Annexure-2 appended with the supplementary affidavit dated 22.01.2025.
Admittedly, the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and provide for a maximum punishment of five years imprisonment, and trial is likely to consume considerable time to conclude, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the further detention of the applicant behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose, who is confined in judicial custody. Further, the prosecution witnesses are official witnesses and presently there does not appear to be any possibility of their being won over, therefore, considering the nature of the trial as well as period of six months undergone by the applicant as an undertrial, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the applicant, subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed.
Conclusion - This Court has no hesitation in holding that the further detention of the applicant behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose, who is confined in judicial custody.
Bail application allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1031
Authority of Kanpur Nagar Nigam to levy and collect advertisement tax or fees after the legislative changes brought by the U.P. Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017 and the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 - HELD THAT:- Insofar as in the penultimate paragraph of the order (of which clarification is sought), it has been clearly provided that the demand impugned in the writ petition to the extent such demands fall in the teeth of Section 173 of U.P. G.S.T. Act read with the 101st Constitutional Amendment is quashed and further to the extent it has been provided by that co-ordinate bench that any amount of "Advertisement Tax" deposited by the petitioners for the period beyond 01.04.2017 may be refunded to the petitioners and no further or other direction was issued, that order is crystal clear as to its reasoning and as to the effect it causes. It admits of no doubt as to what has been provided and what has not been decided.
Conclusion - The Kanpur Nagar Nigam's demands for advertisement tax post-July 1, 2017, are illegal.
To the extent, the order is itself speaking and admits of no doubt, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1030
Extension of time limit for issuing Show Cause Notice (SCN) - Challenge to N/N. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 & N/N. 56/2023 – Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 issued by Respondent No. 6 (Union of India) and N/N. 9/2023 – State Tax dated 24th May, 2023 & N/N. 56/2023 dated 16th January, 2024 issued by Respondent No. 1 (State of Maharashtra) exercising powers u/s 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in the Writ Petition is identical to the issue involved in EVIE REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LTD. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2025 (3) TMI 173 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where it was held that a strong prima facie case is made out for granting interim relief to the Petitioner.
As the issue is identical, similar order is required to be passed in the present Petition also - A strong prima facie case is made out for granting interim relief to the Petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1029
Seeking to quash SCN, issued without jurisdiction - SCN did not contain proper reasons - violation of the doctrine of double jeopardy, barred by res judicata - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Upon a perusal of the show cause notice, it is clear that ingredients of Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') have not been adhered to, as there is no allegation of fraud or any willful-mis-statement and/or suppression of material facts in the said show cause notice. Subsequent to issuance of said show cause notice, this writ petition has been filed. However, in the meantime, order under Section 74 of the Act has also been passed by the authorities. The order is also bereft of any reasons for issuing the notice Section 74 of the Act and does not comply the ingredients thereof.
Conclusion - The SCN did not adhere to the requirements of Section 74 of the UPGST Act, as it lacked allegations of fraud or willful misstatement. Consequently, the impugned SCN and the subsequent order were quashed and set aside.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1028
Seeking grant of bail - fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit - contravention of the conditions of eligibility stipulated in Section 16(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the case diary, it reveals that the petitioner is the proprietor of the alleged company M/s P.S. Enterprise against whom the allegations was made evading payment of total GST amounting to crores of rupees. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to release the accused on bail on the ground of length of detention i.e. 54 days in judicial custody wherein the mandatory period is 60 days. It is not in dispute that the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment up to a maximum period of 5 (five) years and compoundable in nature. It transpires that the object and the purpose of CGST Act is not penal in nature but it is for the purpose of legislation being to recover any amount that may be due to the Government Exchequer.
In the case of Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka Vs. Union of India [2018 (7) TMI 589 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], wherein the benefit of bail was granted to the accused person on deposit of certain portion of disputed liabilities/dues. While deciding a bail application in the case of similar nature, the Court observed 'Revenue is the monetary payment due to the Government and non-payment, whatever be the means applied for such non-payment confers right on the Government, both central and the State, to realize the revenue whereas penal provision of arrest and detention is only when there is violation of the provision under the statute which is not the intention of the legislature to achieve the fiscal object regardless of the existence of a provision for the arrest of the offender in the Act.'
Conclusion - Situated thus, as it appears that the petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody for last 54 days, the GST officials has got sufficient opportunity to interrogate the petitioner. Under such backdrop, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner - the petitioner is granted bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed.
Bail application allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1027
Extension of time limit for issuing Show Cause Notice (SCN) - Challenge to N/N. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 & N/N. 56/2023 – Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 issued by Respondent No. 6 (Union of India) and N/N. 9/2023 – State Tax dated 24th May, 2023 & N/N. 56/2023 dated 16th January, 2024 issued by Respondent No. 1 (State of Maharashtra) exercising powers u/s 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in the Writ Petition is identical to the issue involved in Evie Real Estate Private Limited v/s. State of Maharashtra & Others [2025 (3) TMI 173 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'a strong prima facie case is made out for granting interim relief to the Petitioner'.
As the issue is identical, similar order is required to be passed in the present Petition also - A strong prima facie case is made out for granting interim relief to the Petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1026
Extension of time limit for issuing Show Cause Notice (SCN) - Challenge to N/N. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 & N/N. 56/2023 – Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 issued by Respondent No. 6 (Union of India) and N/N. 9/2023 – State Tax dated 24th May, 2023 & N/N. 56/2023 dated 16th January, 2024 issued by Respondent No. 1 (State of Maharashtra) exercising powers u/s 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) - point raised in this Petition is that these Notifications issued under Section 168A have to be on the recommendation of the GST Council - HELD THAT:- A strong prima facie case is made out for granting of ad-interim relief. This is for two reasons. Firstly the challenge to the aforesaid Notifications is already in issue in several other Writ Petitions before this Court, and in which ad-interim relief is already granted. On the same parity, ad-interim relief would have to be granted in the present Writ Petition also.
Secondly, prima facie, it is found that the Show Cause Notice itself ought to have been issued before 31st May, 2024. This is because, the Show Cause Notice has to be issued atleast three months prior to the time limit specified under Section 73 (10) of the Act. In the present case, the Show Cause Notice has not been issued prior to three months as stipulated in Section 73 (2) of the Act.
The above matter placed on board on 22nd April,, 2025 under the caption “for ad-interim reliefs”.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1025
Cancellation of registration of the Petitioner under the CGST Act, 2017/MGST Act, 2017 - failure to file returns for more than six months - Petitioner is willing to pay all dues together with interest - HELD THAT:- Considering the peculiar facts of this case, and the fair concession made by the learned Addl. GP, we direct the Respondents to compute, within a period of two weeks, the dues if any, payable by the Petitioner. The amount so determined must be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of one week thereafter, and upon the Petitioner paying the said amount, the Petitioner’s registration be restored. It is needless to clarify that the registration should be restored to facilitate the payment of the dues calculated by the Respondents, and within 48 hours of restoration of the registration, the Petitioner must pay the demanded dues. If this is not done, then the registration can be cancelled without the necessity of any notice to the Petitioner. In addition to what is stated herein above, the Petitioner shall pay Rs. 40, 000/- as costs to “The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai” within a period of one week from today.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1024
Recovery of any tax for any period prior to the date when the Resolution Plan was sanctioned - Petitioner has undergone a successful Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and the Resolution Plan is approved by the NCLT - HELD THAT:- The Affidavits in Reply, if any, shall be filed by the said Respondents on or before 7th April, 2025 and a copy of the same shall be served on the Advocates for the Petitioner. If the Petitioner wants to file an Affidavit-in-Rejoinder, they may do so on or before 15th April, 2025 and serve a copy of the same on the Advocate for the concerned Respondents.
As far as interim relief is concerned, it is found that a strong prima facie case is made out for staying the order passed by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as well as the adjudication of the impugned Show Cause Notices. This is said because, atleast prima facie, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra [2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT] has framed a principle that when the new management takes over a Company under a Resolution Plan, it starts with the clean slate and would not be liable for the past dues of the Company and which were incurred prior to the sanction of the Resolution Plan.
Conclusion - i) The principle that a company, post-CIRP and with an NCLT-approved Resolution Plan, is not liable for past dues is reaffirmed. This supports the notion of a "clean slate" for new management. ii) An ad-interim relief granted, staying the impugned orders and notices until further orders, indicating a strong preliminary case in favor of the Petitioner.
The matter is placed on 21st April, 2025 under the caption “for ad-interim reliefs”.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1023
Seeking grant of regular bail - availment of benefit of Input Tax Credit fraudulently, amounting to Rs. 96.95 crores - HELD THAT:- In present case, the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. As per the case of prosecution, the applicant is alleged to have transacted with 24 fictitious firms and the amount of transactions with those firms comes to Rs. 537 crores and on the basis of the said transactions, the applicant had wrongful availed the benefit of Input Tax Credit worth Rs. 96.95 crores though no actual goods had been exchanged between the parties. The punishment prescribed for the offence alleged in the FIR against the present applicant is to the extent of imprisonment for the period of 5 years. Having regard to the punishment prescribed for the offence so also, the fact that the trial of the offence is not likely to commence and conclude in near future, the present application deserves consideration.
Conclusion - In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail, subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed.
Bail application allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1022
Challenge to petitioner's arrest and subsequent judicial custody - non-compliance with the statutory requirement for the issuance of a notice under Section 35 (3) of BNSS, 2023.
HELD THAT:- It is well established in modern criminal jurisprudence and constitutional law that any challenge to the legality of an arrest involves a contest between the entrenched right to life and liberty and the larger public interest and state obligation to punish the guilty. Thus, any interpretative exercise by this Court—whether under its writ jurisdiction or inherent powers—must employ a “test of proportionality.”
In the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI [2022 (8) TMI 152 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court observed in respect of grant of bail to persons accused of offences punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment that “one would expect a better exercise of discretion on the part of the court in favour of the accused”.
The Apex Court, in Ashok Munilal Jain and Anr. v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement [2017 (3) TMI 1642 - SUPREME COURT] held that the procedure prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 is equally applicable to criminal proceedings arising under the CGST Act, 2017.
The inherent powers of a High Court are not negated by any overlap with the judicial review powers conferred under Articles 226 and 227. Writs are extraordinary constitutional remedies and operate independently of the statutory right under Section 528 to address grievances not specifically provided for in the Sanhita - The High Court may, at its discretion, entertain a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution or under Section 528 of BNSS to address a substantial question of law that goes to the root of the matter or the genesis of the prosecution.
A perusal of Section 69 (3) (a) of CGST Act, 2017 reveals that the said Act envisages that the arrestee charged with a cognizable and non-bailable offence as under Section 132 (4) of the said Act shall be forwarded to the custody of the Magistrate, in default of bail. The statute does not provide for custody of the arrestee to either police or the proper officer. Therefore, the authority of the Magistrate to, either admit the said arrestee on bail or remand him to judicial custody, is to be necessarily exercised in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS, 2023 (i.e. CrPC, 1973) - the instant petition is maintainable under Section 528 of BNSS, 2017, particularly where the grounds of challenge to the arrest include non-compliance with the statutory provision of Section 35 (3) of BNSS, 2017.
The Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, [2014 (7) TMI 1143 - SUPREME COURT] held that an arrest without a warrant by a police officer for a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years must satisfy not only the requirement of having ‘reason to believe’ that the arrestee has committed the alleged offence but also that the arrest is necessary for one or more of the purposes enumerated in sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 CrPC (with Section 35(1) of BNSS corresponding to Section 41 CrPC). As to the issue of notice of appearance under Section 35 (3) of BNSS (i.e., Section 41-A of CrPC), the Court observed that such notice must be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, with an extension by the Superintendent of Police possible for reasons recorded in writing.
In the case at hand, the petitioner however, is an arrestee, who has been in custody since 30.01.2025 who had tendered evidence and cooperated with the conduct of inquiry, and thus, had compiled with the summons issued on 02.01.2025 - under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. The subject of challenge herein is not the issuance of summons, but the arrest effected in pursuance of the said summons, when the same was so made without issuance of the notice of appearance under Section 35 (3) of BNSS, 2023 (or section 41-A(1) of CrPC, 1973).
The case at hand involves a complaint of wrongful availment of ITC by the petitioner to the tune of INR 5.10 crores only, and the petitioner has been in remand since the date of his arrest on 30.01.2025 - The CGST, Act 2017 provides for assessment under Section 59, provisional assessment under section 60, scrutiny of returns under Section 61, assessment of persons who do not file returns under Section 62, assessment of unregistered persons under Section 63, summary assessment in special cases under Section 64, and audit under Sections 65 and 66. It is undisputed that while a prosecution can be launched prior to conduct of summary assessment or special audit determining liability, no offence can be said to be made out in respect of purported discrepancies in the furnished returns, until completion of the said audits.
In light of the fact that the petitioner-arrestee was arrested against the offence punishable with no more than five years of imprisonment plus fine, but without the issuance of notice of appearance directing him to appear before the officer authorised under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, and the fact that the petitioner has been incarcerated since 30.1.2025, coupled with the settled bail jurisprudence to exercise discretion in favour of accused of such nature, it is deemed fit that the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
Conclusion - The petitioner's arrest is vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 35 (3) of BNSS.
Petition is granted bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - application allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1021
Refund of excess GST collected by the promoter and deposited with the respondents - compliance with Circular No. 188/20/2022-GST or not - HELD THAT:- It appears that the petitioners have approached this Court prematurely without taking recourse to the actions against the promoter in accordance with law so as to get the requisite documents in order to process the refund claim (if any), to be sanctioned by the respondents as per the provisions of the GST Act and the Rules and therefore, we refrain to entertain this petition at this stage.
The petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1020
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - service of SCN or not - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the petitioner did not prefer any appeal instead he made a representation to some authority which has been dismissed as not acceptable/ maintainable. He has then approached the GST Council, which has also rejected the same.
The second writ petition is not maintainable, accordingly, it is dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1019
Principles of natural justice - Cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect from 23 October 2020 - whether the SCN and the subsequent order provided adequate reasons for such retrospective cancellation and whether the petitioner was given sufficient notice and opportunity to respond to the proposed action? - HELD THAT:- Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Act confers upon the respondents to cancel registration from a retrospective date, in Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax (CGST), South Delhi & Anr. [2024 (10) TMI 278 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that 'In terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria. Merely, because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer’s registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed and the taxpayer was compliant.'
Thus, it becomes apparent that absence of reasons in the original SCN in support of a proposed retrospective cancellation as well as a failure to place the petitioner on prior notice of such an intent clearly invalidates the impugned action. The writ petition is entitled to succeed on this short ground alone.
Conclusion - Retrospective cancellation of GST registration requires a reasoned order and prior notice to the affected party. The mere existence of the power to cancel registration retrospectively does not justify its use without clear and objective reasons.
The writ petition is allowed by modifying the impugned order and providing that the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration shall come into effect from the date of the SCN i.e. 25 October 2021.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1018
Attachment of petitioner's current Banking Account - HELD THAT:- The legal issue involved in this Writ Petition has already been dealt with by this Court in SRI GANAPATHI PANDI INDUSTRIES, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (STATE TAX) (FAC) TONDIARPET ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, CHENNAI [2024 (10) TMI 1631 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], this Court is inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition on the same lines.
It was held in the above case that 'The orders impugned in all Writ Petitions are quashed insofar as it relates to the claim made by the petitioners for ITC which is barred by limitation in terms of Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act, 2017 but, within the period prescribed in terms of Section 16 (5) of the said Act.'
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1017
Claim of ITC was reversed/negatived on the ground of time limitation - retrospective amendments to Section 16 of GST Act - HELD THAT:- When this Writ Petition is taken up for hearing, the respective learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent, would submit that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition, has been squarely covered by the common order of this Court, dated 17.10.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.25081 of 2023, etc., batch [2024 (10) TMI 1631 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein, this Court has categorically held 'this Court considering the fact that the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is only with regard to the availment of ITC, which is barred by limitation in terms of Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act, and in the light of the subsequent developments took place, whereby, Section 16 of the CGST Act was amended and sub-section (5) was inserted to Section 16, which came into force with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017, the petitioners are entitled to avail ITC in respect of GSTR-3B filed in respect of FYs 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 as the case may be, on or before 30.11.2021, is inclined to quash the impugned orders.'
Conclusion - i) The retrospective amendments to Section 16 allow for an extended deadline for claiming ITC, overriding the original limitation period. ii) The petitioners are entitled to avail ITC in respect of GSTR-3B filed in respect of FYs 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 as the case may be, on or before 30.11.2021.
The impugned orders reversing ITC claims were quashed, and the respondent-Department was directed to de-freeze bank accounts and refrain from recovery actions - petition allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 943
Refund of Input Tax Credit on account of export of services without payment of tax - petitioner fairly submits that as and when the petitioner is required to furnish any material, it shall do the needful, without any delay - HELD THAT:- This Court is sanguine that the authorities shall look into the matter in the right earnest. And the appropriate orders shall be passed within the time indicated by learned counsel for the respondents.
Application disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 942
Denial of the benefit of Input Tax Credit on account of the provisions contained in Sub Section(4) of Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax/State Good and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the financial year 2018-19 - HELD THAT:- By the incorporation of section 16(5) to the CGST Act, the time limit to claim the Input Tax Credit for the financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21 has been extended till 30-11-2021. In view of the incorporation of sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Act, petitioner claims that he will be entitled to Input Tax Credit, as he had filed the returns within the time prescribed therein. Petitioner's claim for Input Tax Credit has been rejected without reference to section 16(5) of the Act. Hence, Exhibit-P4 order is liable to be set aside to the extent it had denied Input Tax Credit to the petitioner on the basis of Sub Section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Act and a reconsideration is required to be directed.
Exhibit-P4 is set aside to the extent it has denied Input Tax Credit to the petitioner, and the competent authority is directed to pass fresh orders within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after taking note of the provisions contained in Section 16(5) of the CGST/SGST Act and after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
Petition disposed off.
........
|
9911796707
Advanced Search 
