Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
VIJAY BISHNOI, N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
High Tech Ecogreen Contractors LLP – Appellant
Versus
Joint Director Directorate General of Goods And Services Tax Inteligence (Dggi), Guwahati Zonal Unit – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.
Heard Mr. V.K. Sharff, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CGST appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner, M/s High Tech Ecogreen Contractors LLP, for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the respondent No.2, i.e. Additional Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Guwahati (hereinafter to be referred as the “Additional Commissioner”) in Order-in-Original No.09/Addl. Commr./GST/GHY/2022-2023, whereby the Additional Commissioner confirmed and ordered payment of interest of Rs.1,11,74,767/- for delayed payment of GST for the period from July, 2017 to March, 2021; confirmed demand of ITC amounting to Rs.1,38,39,950/- in respect of ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed in terms of Section 74(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the corresponding Section of Assam GST Act, 2017 and confirmed realisation of interest on the confirmed amount of Rs.1,38,39,950/- at the rates applicable in terms of Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the corresponding Section of Assam GST Act, 2017 and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,
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 court ruled that Rule 39(1)(a) of the CGST Rules is ultra vires Section 20 of the CGST Act, prohibiting the imposition of mandatory timelines on Input Tax Credit distribution rights.
Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, which restricted refunds of IGST on exports where benefits of certain notifications were availed, was declared void for future cases following its omission by new legis....
Rule 96(10) of the CGST Act was declared unconstitutional, thus quashing all related proceedings, affirming rights to refund under the IGST Act without a saving clause.
![Sance Laboratories Private Limited VS Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Finance [Department of Revenue] - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 1148](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Kerala_1.png)
Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules was declared ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act for imposing unjust restrictions on exporters' right to claim IGST refunds.
Maintenance of township is not integrally tied to business activities, thus ITC claims related to township electricity supply are invalid.
Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a concession/benefit/rebate and the legislature is within its competency to impose certain conditions, including time prescription for availing such right.
The court ruled that inadvertent misclassification of IGST as CGST and SGST does not constitute excess credit utilization, especially when no revenue loss occurs.
The court emphasized the importance of providing a reasoned order justifying the blocking of input tax credit in accordance with Rule 86A(3) and the principles of natural justice.
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
