Mountain Valley Springs INDIA PVT LTD vs. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner Of Goods & Services Tax, & Ors.

Held

The High Court adopted the same approach as in the Sare Realty Projects case. It directed that the petitioner's representations, if any, made to the respondents should be considered by the concerned Nodal Officer under the Grievance Redressal Mechanism. The empowered officer was instructed to pass a speaking order. The court clarified that the petitioner's remedies to challenge the order, should they be aggrieved, were reserved. Furthermore, the petitioner was explicitly granted the liberty to question the constitutional vires of the provisions it challenged in the writ petition. The court explicitly stated that it had not commented on the merits of the case. The writ petition and the application were disposed of in terms of these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Mountain Valley Springs India Pvt Ltd, sought to amend its writ petition to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 140(3) of the CGST Act and Rule 117 of the CGST Rules. This challenge pertained to the inability to upload data to avail CENVAT and VAT credit or credit on stock-in-trade. The petitioner's counsel brought to the court's attention a previous order dated August 1, 2018, in a similar case, Sare Realty Projects Private Limited v. Union of India and Ors., where a Division Bench had granted relief. The respondents, represented by the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Goods & Services Tax & Ors., had informed the court in the earlier case about a grievance redressal mechanism in place to address such issues.

Key Issues

1. Whether Section 140(3) of the CGST Act and Rule 117 of the CGST Rules are constitutionally valid, particularly concerning the petitioner's inability to upload data for CENVAT and VAT credit. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought to challenge the constitutional vires of the aforementioned provisions, implying they are arbitrary or unconstitutional as they prevented them from availing transitional credit. Revenue's Argument: The revenue, through its counsel, informed the court about a grievance redressal mechanism established to deal with cases where assessees could not upload data due to technical glitches or other problems. They referred to Circular No. 39/13/2018-GST dated April 3, 2018, and stated that approximately 13,000 out of 17,000 such cases had been resolved. They assured that in each case where a technical issue prevented data upload, the benefit would be given, and rejected claims would be accompanied by speaking orders.