Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, PRANAV TRIVEDI
Arraycom (India) Limited – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. improper classification of itc by the authorities. (Para 4 , 5 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 2. grounds for disallowance of itc. (Para 6 , 7 , 11) |
| 3. argument against wrongful invocation of section 17(5) of gst. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. finding that insurance policy covers stock, not vehicles. (Para 20 , 21 , 23) |
| 5. order to quash impugned notice and order. (Para 24 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Chaitanya S. Joshi for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah for the respondents.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State.
3. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
“a) Issue a writ of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 07.02.2025 (Annexure A) passed by the Respondent No. 2 and holding that the ITC denied under Section 17 (5) of the CGST Act is wrongly classified and fully admissible; &
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate direction t
The eligibility for Input Tax Credit depends on the correct classification of insurance policies, where erroneous classification leads to unlawful denial of ITC.
A writ petition against a GST demand is not maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal is available under Section 107 of the GST Act.
Amendment to Section 16(5) of the CGST Act permits registered persons to avail ITC beyond the limitation previously set by Section 16(4) for specific financial years.
Section 16(5) CGST Act permits ITC claims for 2017-2021 if GSTR-3B filed by 30.11.2021, overriding Section 16(4).
Rule 36(4) of the CGST Rules is valid as it derives authority from Section 16 of the CGST Act, not Section 43A, which was never enforced.
The petitioner must follow statutory remedies before challenging tax demands and provide proof of ITC reversal as required by Section 15(3)(b)(ii) of the CGST Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
