BharatTaxGST

Hcc Samsung Joint Venture vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Original PDF →
W.P.(C)/9737/2024HC DelhiGSTCNR DLHC01041234202423 August 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA2 pages
For Petitioner: Mr. Bharat Raichandani, Mr. Deepak Kumar Khokhar, Ms. Annwesha Laskar, Mr. Chaitanya G. Tripathi and Ms. Prachi Sharma, AdvsFor Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Khanna, SPC for R-1. Mr. Arnav Kumar, SSC and Ms. Aranya Sahay, Advs. for R-3 to 5
AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner challenged the denial of input tax credit due to delay, citing Section 16(4) of the CGST/DGST Act. The petitioner also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16(4).

Held

The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority. This was to consider the claim afresh in light of the amendments introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024.

Key Issues

Whether the denial of input tax credit under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act is valid, and the impact of recent amendments on such claims.

Sections Cited

Section 16(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9737/2024 CM APPL. 39948/2024 HCC SAMSUNG JOINT VENTURE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bharat Raichandani, Mr. Deepak Kumar Khokhar, Ms. Annwesha Laskar, Mr. Chaitanya G. Tripathi and Ms. Prachi Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Khanna, SPC for R-1. Mr. Arnav Kumar, SSC and Ms. Aranya Sahay, Advs. for R-3 to 5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

O R D E R % 23.08.2024

1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the CGST Act)/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the DGST Act). The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) whereby the petitioner’s claim for input tax credit has been denied, by virtue of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act/DGST Act, on account of delay.

2.

The learned counsel for the parties state that in view of the enactment of Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, whereby sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the CGST Act/DGST Act was introduced, their grievance would stand satisfied if the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to consider afresh in This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2024 at 11:57:03

light of the amendments introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also states that he is not pressing the challenge to the constitutional validity of provision of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act/DGST Act.

4.

Mr. Arnav Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 to 5 states that he has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored before the Adjudicating Authority to consider afresh, in view of the amended Section 16 of CGST Act/DGST Act.

5.

In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the same in the light of enactment of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SACHIN DATTA, J AUGUST 23, 2024/cl This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2024 at 11:57:03

Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.