Royal Calcutta Golf Club vs. Senior Joint Commissioner Of State Tax, Behala Circle, Kolkata And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Royal Calcutta Golf Club, has filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 24, 2024, passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The State, represented by the Senior Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Behala Circle, Kolkata, is the respondent. The petitioner argues that a recent amendment to the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, effective from July 10, 2024, and recommendations from the 53rd GST Council meeting held on June 22, 2024, should provide relief. The respondents contend that the amendment is prospective and does not benefit the petitioner. The court noted that the appellate tribunal under Section 112 of the Act is yet to be constituted.

Held

The Court found that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case. This was based on the amendment introduced to the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, via a notification dated July 10, 2024, and the recommendations from the 53rd GST Council meeting held on June 22, 2024. The Court acknowledged the respondents' argument that the amendment was prospective. However, considering the balance of convenience and the fact that the appellate tribunal is yet to be constituted, the Court decided to grant interim relief. The demand dated January 24, 2024, raised by the respondents in form APL-04, was stayed during the pendency of the writ petition or until further order. The Court did not definitively rule on the applicability of the amendment to the petitioner's case but granted a stay pending further proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the amendment introduced to the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, by way of a notification dated July 10, 2024, and the recommendations made by the 53rd GST Council meeting held on June 22, 2024, are applicable to the petitioner's case, particularly concerning the demand dated January 24, 2024. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argues that the recent amendment and GST Council recommendations provide a prima facie case for relief, implying they should be applied retrospectively or in a manner that benefits them. They rely on the spirit of the amendment and council recommendations. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents argue that the aforesaid amendment is only prospective and, as such, does not afford any relief to the petitioner. They contend that the amendment does not apply to the demand raised prior to its effective date.