2024 (7) TMI 174 - HC - GST

High-Stakes GST Input Tax Credit Battle: Judicial Review Halts Coercive Actions, Demands Comprehensive Procedural Scrutiny

HC ruled on GST input tax credit dispute, issuing notices to both parties. The court directed no coercive action against the petitioner and sought ... Validity of impugned order - time barred proceedings - extension of limitation in terms of Notification issued under Section 168A of the GST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Considering the issues involved, let Notice be issued returnable by 4 (four) weeks. Since, the learned Standing Counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents, notices waived, however, extra copies of the writ petition be furnished within a period of 1 (one) week from today - Let this matter also be listed along with other similar matters, which was fixed on 22.07.2024. Issues involved:1. Time-barred proceedings and extension of limitation under GST Act, 20172. Claim of Input Tax Credit benefit as a vested right3. Interpretation of GST Council Meeting recommendations on time limit for availing Input Tax CreditAnalysis:Issue 1: Time-barred proceedings and extension of limitation under GST Act, 2017The petitioner challenged the impugned order issued by the Assistant Commissioner, GST and Central Excise, Guwahati Division, on the grounds that the proceedings were time-barred. The petitioner contended that the extension of limitation under a Notification issued under Section 168A of the GST Act, 2017 was contrary to the provisions of the law. The petitioner raised concerns about the validity of the extension and its impact on the proceedings.Issue 2: Claim of Input Tax Credit benefit as a vested rightThe petitioner relied on a judgment of the Kerala High Court in a similar matter to support the claim that the Input Tax Credit benefit is a vested right that cannot be taken away, even in cases of delayed compliance with the provisions of the Act. Citing the judgment in M/S M. Trade Links Vs Union of India, the petitioner argued that the denial of the Input Tax Credit benefit was unjustified and contrary to established legal principles regarding vested rights.Issue 3: Interpretation of GST Council Meeting recommendations on time limit for availing Input Tax CreditThe petitioner referred to the recommendations of the 53rd GST Council Meeting to argue that the time limit for availing Input Tax Credit should be extended based on the meeting's decisions. By interpreting the recommendations, the petitioner contended that the denial of the Input Tax Credit benefit in the impugned order was legally flawed and went against the spirit of the GST Council's directives. The petitioner sought the intervention of the court to set aside the impugned order and issue interim orders during the proceedings.Response by Dr. B. N. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, CGSTDr. B. N. Gogoi, representing the respondents, argued that the denial of the Input Tax Credit benefits in the impugned order was justified based on the petitioner's failure to comply with the provisions of the Act. Referring to a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a similar matter, Dr. B. N. Gogoi contended that the withdrawal or denial of Input Tax Credit benefits could not be challenged on constitutional grounds. The counsel highlighted the importance of compliance with the Act's provisions in determining the eligibility for Input Tax Credit benefits.ConclusionThe High Court of GAUHATI issued notices returnable in four weeks to further examine the issues raised by both parties. While acknowledging the arguments presented by the petitioner regarding time-barred proceedings, vested rights, and interpretation of GST Council Meeting recommendations, the court also considered the respondent's stance on compliance with the Act's provisions. The court directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner until the next hearing, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of the case in light of the legal principles and precedents cited by both parties.