Validity of GST Rule 117 Upheld, Aligns with CGST Act Amendment The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, regarding online submission of Form GST ...
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.
Validity of GST Rule 117 Upheld, Aligns with CGST Act Amendment
The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, regarding online submission of Form GST TRAN-1 within a specified period. The Court noted that the rule aligns with Section 140 of the CGST Act, as amended by the Finance Act 2020. It found that the petitioner's cited judgments did not consider the amended provisions of Section 140, and there were conflicting views in other judgments. The case was scheduled for further hearing on 16th December 2020.
Issues: Challenge to constitutional validity of Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 regarding online submission of Form GST TRAN-1 within a specified period.
Analysis: The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, arguing that it is ultra vires Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and violates Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The High Court noted that Rule 117, which prescribes a time frame for online submission, aligns with the provision of Section 140 of the CGST Act, as amended by the Finance Act 2020. The Court observed that the petitioner had cited judgments from Delhi High Court, Punjab and Haryana High Court, and Gujarat, but these judgments did not consider the amended provisions of Section 140. The Special Counsel for the State of U.P. mentioned that there are judgments with a different view and promised to provide copies on the next date.
The Court found that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner did not address the specific issue raised in the present writ petition regarding the amended provisions of Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Special Counsel highlighted the existence of judgments with contrasting views, indicating a lack of relevance in the petitioner's citations. As a result, the Court scheduled the case for further hearing on 16th December, 2020, as requested by both parties.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
