2020 (11) TMI 182 - HC - GST

Vires of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - time limit for availment of Input Tax Credit - HELD THAT - Since the vires of provisions of the Act and Rules are under challenge herein, the subject matter of which is not assigned to this Bench, the instant writ petition be listed before the appropriate Division Bench as per the present distribution of roster.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the vires of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 regarding time limit for availing Input Tax Credit; Declaration sought on the amendment to Rule 61(5) of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017; Questioning the demand letter for payment of availed Input Tax Credit.

Analysis:
The petitioner raised concerns regarding the constitutionality of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which sets a time limit for claiming Input Tax Credit, alleging violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India, along with the basic structure of the Act. Additionally, the petitioner challenged the amendment to Rule 61(5) of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017, inserted through Notification No. 49/2019, retroactively declaring GSTR-3B as a valid return under Section 39 of the Act from 1st July, 2017. This challenge was based on alleged violations of constitutional provisions and affecting the petitioner's right to avail tax credit.

The petitioner further contested a demand letter issued on 12th February, 2020, requesting payment of ?97,324/- claimed as Input Tax Credit for discharging output tax liability. The petitioner argued that this demand was arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the scheme of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and its associated rules. The court noted that as the validity of the Act and Rules was in question, the matter fell outside the jurisdiction of the current Bench and should be transferred to the appropriate Division Bench as per the roster distribution for further consideration.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the challenges raised by the petitioner against specific provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and associated rules, emphasizing alleged violations of constitutional rights and procedural irregularities. The court directed the transfer of the writ petition to the relevant Division Bench due to the nature of the issues raised, indicating the need for a more specialized consideration of the legal aspects involved in the case.