Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2018 (10) TMI 876

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....declaring Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and Form GST Tran1 as ultra vires to Section 140(5) and Section 164 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and also offends Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), Article 265 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India, 1950; (b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of declaration and/or any other appropriate writ(s) declaring Section 164 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as unconstitutional as it suffers from vice of excessive delegation; (c) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ(s), direction(s) and/or pass necessary order(s) directing the respondents to allow rectification of GST - Tran1, to enable credit of carry forward of Credit on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le 117 of the respective rules came to be challenged before this Court in case of Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Petitioner therein had challenged section 140(5) of the CGST Act also. Both these challenges were repealed by the High Court by the said judgment. In such judgment, it was noticed that the Government had amended rule 117 providing for limited extension of time for filing TRAN1 declarations with the permission of the concerned Commissioner if previously within the time granted, the same could not be done on account of technical glitches on the official portal. 6. Case of the petitioner is that such TRAN1 was actually filed within the time originally permitted. After the time limit was over, the petitioner noticed certain....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. in which, various recommendations were made to enable the petitioner to correct TRAN1 declaration where the figure of CENVAT credit available was shown as Rs. 11,10,555/instead of Rs. 1,11,05,550/in exercise of powers under section 172 of the CGST Act. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Ankit Shah for the department opposed the petition contending that this Court in case of Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.(supra) has examined the time limit provisions contained in the transitional chapter and found that the same cannot be lightly extended. He submitted that the petitioner had time upto 27.12.2017 to make a declaration which would include the opportunity to correct a declaration already made if any....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....forward during the regime change. As is wellsettled, the reduced rate of duty or concession in payment of duty are in the nature of an exemption and is always open for the legislature to grant as well as to withdraw such exemption. As noted in case of Jayam & Company [Supra], the Supreme Court had observed that input tax credit is a form of concession provided by the legislature and can be made available subject to conditions. Likewise, in the case of Reliance Industries Limited [Supra], it was held and observed that how much tax credit has to be given and under what circumstances is a domain of the legislature. In case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Pvt. Limited [Supra], the Supreme Court had upheld a rule which restricts availment of MODVAT c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ry. When the entire tax structure of the country is being shifted from earlier framework to a new one, there has to be a degree of finality on claims, credits, transfers of such credits and all issues related thereto. The petitioners cannot argue that without any reference to the time limit, such credits should be allowed to be transferred during the process of migration. Any such view would hamper the effective implementation of the new tax structure and would also lead to endless disputes and litigations. As noted in case of USA Agencies [Supra], the Supreme Court had upheld the vires of a statutory provision contained in the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act which provided that the dealer would have to make a claim for input tax credit befo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d to the new regime. Under the new GST laws, the existing tax structure was being replaced by the new set of statutes, through an exercise which was unprecedented in the Indian context. The claims of carry forward of the existing duties and credits during the period of migration, therefore, had to be within the prescribed time. Doing away with the time limit for making declarations could give rise to multiple largescale claims trickling in for years together, after the new tax structure is put in place. This would besides making the task of matching of the credits impractical if not impossible, also impact the revenue collection estimates. It is in this context that the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited (Supra), after....