High Court petition challenges CGST Act amendment on credit ledger, seeks direction and counters rules. The High Court of Delhi heard a petition seeking direction to carry forward credit of eligible dues in the electronic credit ledger, challenging specific ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
High Court petition challenges CGST Act amendment on credit ledger, seeks direction and counters rules.
The High Court of Delhi heard a petition seeking direction to carry forward credit of eligible dues in the electronic credit ledger, challenging specific rules and objecting to a retrospective amendment in the CGST Act. The Court directed notice to respondents, ordered filing of counter-affidavits within four weeks, and scheduled further proceedings for September 16, 2020. The judgment emphasized the key issues raised and outlined a systematic approach to address the legal complexities presented in the case.
Issues: Petition seeking direction to allow carrying forward of credit of eligible dues in electronic credit ledger, declaration of Rules 117 and 120A as ultra vires, and challenging retrospective amendment in Section 140(1) of CGST Act.
Analysis:
The High Court of Delhi, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula, heard a petition filed seeking various reliefs related to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner sought a direction to allow carrying forward of credit of eligible dues in its electronic credit ledger concerning stock available as of 30th June 2017. Additionally, the petitioner requested a declaration of Rules 117 and 120A of the CGST Rules as ultra vires Sections 140 and 174 of the CGST Act. The petitioner also challenged the retrospective amendment made in Section 140(1) with effect from 1st July 2017, alleging it to be illegal and arbitrary. The Court noted the urgency expressed in listing the petition and conducted the hearing via video conferencing.
During the proceedings, Mr. Anil Soni, learned standing counsel, accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 1, while Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned counsel, accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 2. The Court directed the issuance of notice to the unserved respondent and ordered the filing of counter-affidavits within four weeks. Any rejoinder-affidavit was to be filed within four weeks thereafter. The matter was listed for further hearing on 16th September 2020. The Court instructed the immediate uploading of the order on the website and the forwarding of a copy to the learned counsel through email.
In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the key issues raised in the petition, including the request for carrying forward of credit, the challenge to specific rules, and the objection to the retrospective amendment in the CGST Act. The Court's directives regarding notice, filing of affidavits, and scheduling of further proceedings demonstrated a systematic approach to addressing the complex legal issues presented in the case.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
