Pari materia comparison required before applying GST reasoning to deny Cenvat credit under earlier indirect tax provisions.

A ratio drawn from one statutory regime cannot be applied mechanically to another unless the relevant provisions are first compared and found to be pari materia. The order notes that denial of Cenvat credit under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 had been based on direct reliance on the Safari Retreats principle from the GST regime and the Finance Act, 1994. It states that the Commissioner was required to compare Rule 2(l) with Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017 before reaching any conclusion. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration after that comparison, with liberty to make further submissions.

---

---

Issues: Whether a decision rendered under the Central Goods and Services Tax regime could be applied to deny Cenvat credit under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 without first examining whether the two provisions were pari materia.

Analysis: The order records that the impugned denial rested on direct application of the Safari Retreats ratio to the Finance Act, 1994 and the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It holds that a ratio drawn from one enactment cannot be mechanically applied to another unless the relevant provisions are first compared and found to be pari materia. The Commissioner was therefore required to compare Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 with the corresponding GST provision under Section 17(5)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 before drawing any conclusion.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for fresh decision after examining whether the two provisions are pari materia, with liberty to the appellant to make further submissions.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was not finally decided on merits and was sent back for reconsideration within a fixed time frame.

Ratio Decidendi: A decision under one statutory regime cannot be applied to another unless the relevant provisions are first found to be pari materia.

---