2023 (8) TMI 644 - HC - GST

Landmark Decision: Petitioner Granted Right to Challenge CGST and MGST Act Section 17(5)(c) in Future Proceedings

HC granted petitioner liberty to challenge CGST and MGST Act Section 17(5)(c) constitutional validity in future proceedings. Court noted similar case ... Permission for withdrawal of petition - Constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 17(5)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and Section 17(5)(c) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Restriction on benefit of ITC on works contract services - HELD THAT:- Petition disposed as withdrawn. Issues involved: Challenge to the Constitutional validity of provisions of u/s 17(5)(c) of CGST Act and MGST Act.Summary:Issue 1: Challenge to Constitutional Validity of ProvisionsThe petitioners sought to challenge the Constitutional validity of Section 17(5)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and Section 17(5)(c) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (MGST Act). The Court noted that a similar issue is pending consideration before the Supreme Court. In light of this, the Court agreed with the petitioner's counsel that the petition could be withdrawn with liberty for the petitioner to raise all contentions at the appropriate time and forum.Issue 2: Liberty to Raise Contentions and Make ApplicationsThe Court granted the petitioner liberty to raise all contentions at the appropriate time and before the appropriate forum. It was also mentioned that the petitioner could make an appropriate application before the concerned authority regarding the availment of input credits, and if such an application is made, it should be decided in accordance with the law. All contentions of the parties were expressly kept open for future consideration.Issue 3: Interim Application Before Supreme CourtThe petitioner had filed an Interim Application before the Supreme Court to raise the present issues. The Court disposed of the matter as withdrawn, granting liberty to the petitioner, and no costs were imposed in this regard.