SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Bom) 2429

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT NAGPUR BENCH
R. K. Deshpande, Vinay Joshi, JJ.
M/s. Bombay Well Print Inks Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1292 of 2019
Decided On : 25-02-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Shri A. J. Gohokar, Advocate with Ms. Pradnya Chitaley, Advocate, for the Appellant; Shri A.M. Deshpande, Addl. Government Pleader, for the Respondents

Headnote:

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Sections 53 and 54 - Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Rule 89(5) – Tax - Claimed refund of excess tax - Notice of demand - Challenged - Petition is to Rule 89(5) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 along with Notification No. dated Notification No. dated and Circular No. issued under Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 – Held, petitioner who is Manufacturer of Ink is required to pay inputs tax @ 18% whereas, his entitlement to shift burden of tax on output is to extent of 12% - Petitioner has claimed refund of excess tax paid which according to him, is entitlement under Sections 53 and 54 under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - According to him, similar question is being considered by Gujarat High Court and order dated passed staying notice of demand - Issue notice to the respondents for final disposal of matter returnable - Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 – Order accordinglys

JUDGMENT

R. K. Deshpande, J. - The challenge in this petition is to Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 along with Notification No. 21/2018 dated 18.04.2018, Notification No. 26/2018 dated 13.06.2018 and the Circular No. 79/53/2018 dated 31.12.2018 issued under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017.

2. According to the petitioner who is the Manufacturer of Ink is required to pay inputs tax @ 18% whereas, his entitlement to shift the burden of tax on the output is to the extent of 12%. The petitioner has therefore, claimed refund of the excess tax paid which according to him, is the entitlement under Sections 53 and 54 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

3. According to him, similar question is being considered by the Gujarat High Court and the order dated 18.09.2018 passed staying the notice of demand.

4. Issue notice to the respondents for final disposal of the matter returnable on 22.04.2018.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top