The case involves multiple writ petitions challenging Clause (iv) of Section 140(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), which restricts input tax credit for traders, first stage dealers, depots, etc., on stock held as on 1.7.2017 to invoices issued not earlier than twelve months preceding the appointed day.[4000563460002][4000563460003][4000563460013][4000563460014] (!) (!)

Petitioners are manufacturers of machinery (e.g., excavators under Chapter 8429) with duty-paid depots, and traders/first stage dealers dealing in machines, pipes, tubes, etc., who paid excise duty on clearance from factories but challenge denial of credit for stock older than 12 months under GST transition, claiming double taxation and discrimination against depots/traders vs. manufacturers.[4000563460003][4000563460004][4000563460011][4000563460012][4000563460021]

Under pre-GST regime, petitioners' factories/depots were registered under Central Excise Act/Rules; demo machines cleared on payment of duty from factory to unregistered depots, sold later on VAT/CST; no excise on depot removal; duty-paid documents exist for stock as on 30.6.2017 older than 12 months.[4000563460003][4000563460004][4000563460021]

Petitioners argue Section 140(3)(iv) is arbitrary cutoff causing inequality (manufacturers get full credit via Section 140(1), traders partial/none), violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265, 300A; no nexus to GST object of eliminating cascading; ignores business cycle (2-3 years for demo sales); vested right under existing law saved by Section 174; promissory estoppel applies.[4000563460005][4000563460006][4000563460008][4000563460022][4000563460023][4000563460031][4000563460033]

Respondents deny challenge merits; policy decision by Parliament not justiciable; 12-month limit reasonable safeguard against misuse (similar to CENVAT Rule 4(7) proviso); input credit is concession/restriction under VAT principles, not equity/hardship; no discrimination; Section 16(1) CGST empowers credit restrictions.[4000563460016][4000563460028][4000563460029]

Court holds input tax credit under CGST (Sections 16-18) and CENVAT Rules conditional/restricted (e.g., time limits, documents); no unconditional vested right under existing law; transitional Section 140(3) provides concession with nexus to smooth transition, consistent with prior conditions. (!) (!) [4000563460039][4000563460040][4000563460041][4000563460054][4000563460055]

Clause (iv) not arbitrary: 12 months reasonable for documents; applies to specific class (traders/depots not registered under prior excise); fiscal policy deference to Legislature; no double taxation as excise subsumed but credit transitional/conditional.[4000563460045][4000563460046][4000563460055]

Section 174 saves conditional rights/privileges under repealed laws; no absolute accrued right to unrestricted credit; promissory estoppel inapplicable against statute/legislative policy in public interest.[4000563460047] (!) [4000563460048][4000563460050][4000563460064]

No discrimination: transitional provisions cover all; equals treated equally with conditions; Elcher Motors/Jayam distinguished (no lapsing of unutilized credit here, but conditional transition).[4000563460060][4000563460061]

Petitions dismissed; Rule discharged; no costs.[4000563460066][4000563460067][4000563460068]