TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Scrutinizes GST Rule 89(5), Challenges Refund Denial of Unutilized Input Tax Credit with Potential Legal Concerns</h1> <h3>Shree Rama Newsprint Limited Through Executive Director Siddharth Ganpatraj Chowdhury Versus Union Of India Through Secretary</h3> SC examined the constitutional validity of Rule 89(5) of Central GST Rules, 2017 challenging the denial of refund for unutilized input tax credit. The ... Vires of Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as amended vide N/N. 21/2018-Central Tax dated 18.4.2018 and N/N. 26/2018-Central Tax dated 13.6.2018 - denial of grant of refund of unutilized tax credit in respect of tax paid on input services - Held that:- We are inclined to issue Notice returnable on 10.10.2018 - there shall be ad-interim relief as prayed for in para 17(D) meaning thereby the impugned demand notice dated 21.6.2018 and its operation and implementation is stayed hereby. Issues: Challenge to Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 denying refund of unutilized tax credit on input services.Analysis:The judgment delves into the challenge against Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which denies the refund of unutilized tax credit on input services. The petitioners argue that this provision is ultra vires to the Constitution of India and the relevant provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court examines Sections 53 and 54 of Chapter XI of the Act, focusing on the 'Refund' aspect, along with the definitions of 'input,' 'input services,' 'input tax,' and 'input tax credit' under Sections 2(59), (60), (62), and (63) of the Act. The court notes the amendments made to Rule 89 through notifications dated 18.4.2018 and 13.6.2018, allowing retrospective effect. The contention revolves around the denial of refund for unutilized input tax credit under the amended Rule 89(5) and the legality of the demand notice issued on 21.6.2018.The court, after considering the arguments presented, is inclined to issue a Notice returnable on 10.10.2018. In the interim, the court grants ad-interim relief as requested in paragraph 17(D), thereby staying the operation and implementation of the impugned demand notice dated 21.6.2018. The court allows for direct service in this regard. The judgment reflects a meticulous analysis of the legal provisions, definitions, and amendments relevant to the challenge against Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, showcasing a balanced approach to the issues raised by the petitioners.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
