M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. The Union Of INDIA And 6 Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging Notification No. 49/2019-CT dated 09.10.2019, which discontinued the filing of FORM GSTR-3. The petitioner contended that this prevented them from disclosing and availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) that could have been shown in GSTR-3. They also challenged a show-cause notice dated 21.07.2023, alleging it was contrary to Rule 142(1) of the GST Rules. The petitioner sought directions to act as per Notification No. 72/2017-CT dated 29.12.2017 and accept GSTR-3(B) returns. The revenue argued that the petitioner filed returns late for the financial year ending 31.03.2018, submitting them on 28.01.2020, though the last date was 23.04.2019. They noted an extension till 30.11.2021 by a notification under the Finance Act No. 2 of 2024.
Held
The Court did not delve into the merits of the issues raised. Based on the statement made by the learned Standing Counsel for the CBIC, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an additional reply to the show-cause notice dated 21.07.2023 within 30 days from the date of the order, annexing all documents they intended to rely upon. Subsequently, the competent authority, the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Itanagar, or any other competent authority, was directed to provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing before passing the Order-in-Original in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly stated that this order was not intended to be cited as a precedent as the merits of the case were not examined. No specific finding was given on the validity of Notification No. 49/2019-CT or the compliance with Rule 142(1).
Key Issues
1. Whether Notification No. 49/2019-CT dated 09.10.2019, which discontinued the filing of FORM GSTR-3, is valid and whether it prevented the petitioner from availing Input Tax Credit (ITC)? (Question of law turning on the interpretation of GST provisions and notifications). 2. Whether the show-cause notice dated 21.07.2023 issued to the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of Rule 142(1) of the GST Rules? (Question of mixed law and fact turning on procedural compliance). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the discontinuation of GSTR-3 filing by Notification No. 49/2019-CT prevented them from disclosing and availing ITC. They also contended that the show-cause notice was issued contrary to Rule 142(1). They prayed for directions to follow Notification No. 72/2017-CT and accept GSTR-3(B) returns. Revenue's arguments: The revenue submitted that the petitioner filed returns for the financial year ending 31.03.2018 late, on 28.01.2020, beyond the original due date of 23.04.2019. They highlighted that the filing deadline was extended to 30.11.2021 by a notification under the Finance Act No. 2 of 2024. They suggested the petitioner file an additional reply to the show-cause notice.
Sections Cited
Rule 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040004572024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/157/2024 M/s A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd represented by its authorized reprsenteative Mr Janardan Mani Tripathi, Pasighat, Banskota Colony, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The Union of India and 6 Ors represented by the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Block, New Delhi 110001 2:The Union of India Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the Under Secretary to the Govt of India (Revenue) Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue New Block New Delhi 110001 3:The GST Council Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the Chairperson Ministry of Finance North Block New Delhi 110001 4:Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the Chairperson North Block Central Secretariat New Delhi 110001
Page No.# 2/4 5:GST Network Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the Chairperson Ministry of Finance North Block New Delhi 110001 6:Commissioner / Joint Secretary in the Board Age: 0 Occupation : Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs North Block Central Secretariat New Delhi 110001 7:The Assistant Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Central GST and Cx Itanagar Sector A Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh 79111 Advocate for the Petitioner : T Tsering, P Agarwal Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, M K Boro,DSGI
-BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA 21.01.2025 Heard Ms. S. Bisht, learned counsel, on instruction, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. K. Boro, learned Standing counsel for the CBIC representing respondent Nos. 4, 6 & 7 and Mr. K. Teri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI.
The grievance of the petitioner, in brief, is that the filing of form GSTR-3 and GSTR-2 returns was not operationalised. It is projected that Page No.# 3/4 by several notifications issued from time to time, it was projected by the respondent authorities that the time limit for furnishing of returns under the said form shall be subsequently modified. However, by virtue of notification No. 49/2019-CT, dated 09.10.2019, the respondent authorities had done away with filing of FORM GSTR-3. Accordingly, it is projected that the Input Tax Credit (for short, ‘ITC’), which could have been shown in GSTR-3 could not be disclosed and availed by the petitioner. Thereafter, show-cause notice dated 21.07.2023 was issued on the petitioner which is projected to be contrary to the provisions of Rule 142 (1) of the GST Rules and therefore, by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the said Notification No. 49/2019-CT dated 09.10.2019 and has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to act as per the Notification No. 72/2017-CT dated 29.12.2017 and for a direction to accept the GSTR-3 (B) Return.
The learned Standing counsel for the CBIC has submitted that the last date of submission of the GSTR returns for financial year ending on 31.03.2018 was 23.04.2019, however, the petitioner had filed its returns only on 28.01.2020. It is submitted that nonetheless, by virtue of notification issued under Finance Act No. 2 of 2024, the last date of filing of returns was extended till 30.11.2021. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the Show-Cause Notice has already been issued to the petitioner, the petitioner may file additional Show-Cause reply, if so desired, annexing thereto all the documents on which he intends to rely upon, which would be considered by the competent authority while passing the Order-in- Original in connection with the said Show-Cause Notice dated 21.07.2023. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Page No.# 4/4 petitioner has already submitted reply to the Show-Cause Notice dated 21.07.2023. 5. In view of the statement made by the learned Standing counsel for the CBIC, the Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by granting the liberty to the petitioner to file additional reply, if any, within a period of 30 days from the date of this order and annex thereto the documents which the petitioner intends to rely upon.
Thereupon, the competent authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Itanagar (respondent no.7) or any of the competent authority shall give a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to attend the personal hearing and thereupon, passed the Order-in-Original in accordance with law.
Therefore, without entering into the merit of the issues raised in the writ petition and on the basis of the statement made by the learned Standing counsel for CBIC, this writ petition stands partly allowed on the terms as indicated above.
It is made clear that as the merit of the case has not been entered into, this order is not intended to be cited as a precedent.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.