Section 17(3) CGST and related notifications upheld; no vested right to input tax credit for reverse-charge services

The HC upheld the constitutional validity of the challenged notifications and Section 17(3) CGST, dismissing the petition. It held there is no vested right to input tax credit; entitlement is statutory and limited to what the statute permits. Services taxed under the reverse charge mechanism do not render the service provider liable for output tax, so they have no tax liability against which to set off input credit. The court found the classification rational and not violative of Article 14, rejecting the claim of hostile discrimination.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of Notifications imposing reverse charge mechanism for GST on recovery agent services.
2. Challenge to Section 17(3) of the CGST Act deeming recovery agent services as exempted supplies.
3. Allegation of discrimination and arbitrariness in denial of input tax credit.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of Notifications imposing reverse charge mechanism for GST on recovery agent services

The petitioner challenged Notifications No. 30/2012-ST, No. 10/2014-ST, and No. 10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) issued by the Central Government, which imposed a reverse charge mechanism for GST on recovery agent services. The court noted that the Finance Act, CGST Act, and IGST Act permit the levy of tax on a reverse charge basis. Section 68(2) of the Finance Act empowers the Central Government to notify certain taxable services for reverse charge. Similarly, Sections 9(3) of the CGST Act and 5(3) of the IGST Act allow the Central Government to specify categories of supply on which tax shall be paid on a reverse charge basis by the recipient. The court found no merit in the suggestion that the impugned Notifications were without authority of law.

Issue 2: Challenge to Section 17(3) of the CGST Act deeming recovery agent services as exempted supplies

The petitioner contended that Section 17(3) of the CGST Act, which includes supplies on which the recipient is liable to pay tax on a reverse charge basis as exempted supplies, was ultra vires the CGST Act and the IGST Act. The court held that there is no vested or inherent right of an assessee to claim credit for input tax paid on services availed. The right to avail input tax credit is a statutory right available only if the statute provides for it. The court emphasized that denying input tax credit to service providers not liable to pay tax on output services is rational, as they have no liability against which to set off the input tax credit.

Issue 3: Allegation of discrimination and arbitrariness in denial of input tax credit

The petitioner argued that the denial of input tax credit was discriminatory and arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court stated that in matters of fiscal legislation, the legislature has wide discretion in classification. It found no merit in the contention that the reverse charge mechanism amounted to hostile discrimination. The court noted that all persons rendering services of a particular nature were treated uniformly. The rationale for denying input tax credit to service providers not liable to pay tax on output services was clear and had a rational nexus to the classification. The court concluded that the legislative scheme for denying input tax credit in such cases was neither irrational nor arbitrary.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenges to the impugned Notifications or the provisions of Section 17(3) of the CGST Act. The denial of input tax credit in respect of services where GST is payable on a reverse charge basis was held to be rational and not discriminatory.

---