https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784051 The dominant issue was whether Clause 8 of a State tax reimbursement scheme, which effectively disentitled or curtailed availment of ITC, was ultra vires Article 246A and Article 279A of the Constitution and Sections 16 and 164 of the CGST Act (read with the definitional provision invoked) governing entitlement to ITC and rule-making power. The HC prima facie accepted the challenge, holding that Clause 8 appeared inconsistent with the constitutional allocation of GST powers and the statutory scheme for ITC. Consequently, the HC stayed operation of the impugned GST show cause notices pending further hearing and directed filing of a counter affidavit by the State authorities. en-us Fri, 14 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Dec 2025 08:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784051 The dominant issue was whether Clause 8 of a State tax reimbursement scheme, which effectively disentitled or curtailed availment of ITC, was ultra vires Article 246A and Article 279A of the Constitution and Sections 16 and 164 of the CGST Act (read with the definitional provision invoked) governing entitlement to ITC and rule-making power. The HC prima facie accepted the challenge, holding that Clause 8 appeared inconsistent with the constitutional allocation of GST powers and the statutory scheme for ITC. Consequently, the HC stayed operation of the impugned GST show cause notices pending further hearing and directed filing of a counter affidavit by the State authorities. Case-Laws GST Fri, 14 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784051