Ssg Furnising LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax, Division- Bawana & Ors.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner had already obtained the substantive relief sought, namely, the restoration of its GST registration. Consequently, the issue concerning the legal tenability of Rule 21(A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, had become academic. The Court held that this question would remain open for examination in a suitable future matter. Therefore, the Court did not decide on the merits of the challenge to Rule 21(A). The writ petition and the pending application were closed as the primary grievance of the petitioner had been addressed.
Facts
The petitioner, SSG Furnishing LLP, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an action by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Division-Bawana. The petitioner sought the restoration of its GST registration. The court was informed that the substantive relief had been granted, and the petitioner's GST registration had been restored. The only remaining concern for the petitioner was the legal tenability of Rule 21(A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which they argued was contrary to the Constitution of India and the CGST Act, 2017.
Key Issues
1. Whether Rule 21(A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, is legally tenable as it is contended by the petitioner to be contrary to the Constitution of India and the CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that Rule 21(A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, is unconstitutional and ultra vires the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. They relied on the Constitution of India and the CGST Act, 2017, to support their claim. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Division-Bawana & Ors.) regarding the legal tenability of Rule 21(A).
Sections Cited
Rule 21(A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2022 [Physical Court hearing/ Hybrid hearing (as per request)]
Mr Puneet Rai, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the substantive relief has been granted.
We are informed by Mr Rai, that GST registration concerning the petitioner has been restored.
The only other concern, which the petitioner appears to have, is with regard to the legal tenability of Rule 21(A) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 3.1 Mr Rai says that the same is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India, as well as the CGST Act, 2017. W.P.(C) 4790/2022
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.