M/S Sharp Mint Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 Others
Facts
The petitioners, M/s Sharp Mint Limited, M/s Bharat Enterprises, M/s S.J Mentha Products, M/s Shree Balaji Aromatics Pvt. Ltd., M/s N.S Mint Products Pvt. Ltd., and Shree Gopal Jitendra Kumar, filed writ petitions before the High Court. The petitions challenged the validity of Rule 86A of the CGST/UP GST Rules, 2017, which pertains to blocking Input Tax Credit (ITC). The respondents were the Union of India and other authorities. The petitioners later stated they were not pressing the relief challenging the validity of Rule 86A. They further submitted that the writ petitions had become infructuous because the maximum period for blocking ITC under Rule 86A had already expired.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioners were not pressing the relief challenging the validity of Rule 86A of the CGST/UP GST Rules, 2017. Additionally, the petitioners submitted that the writ petitions had become infructuous because the maximum period for blocking Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Rule 86A had already expired. In light of these submissions by the petitioners, the Court found no reason to proceed with the adjudication of the validity of Rule 86A. The Court's decision was based solely on the petitioners' stance that the matter was no longer live or pressing. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petitions as infructuous. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition that is not pressed by the petitioner and is rendered infructuous due to the efflux of time or other supervening circumstances, will be dismissed as such.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petitions challenging the validity of Rule 86A of the CGST/UP GST Rules, 2017, are maintainable and require adjudication, considering the petitioners are not pressing the relief sought. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners are not pressing the relief challenging the validity of Rule 86A of the CGST/UP GST Rules, 2017. Furthermore, the writ petitions have become infructuous as the maximum period for blocking ITC under Rule 86A has expired. Respondent's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the respondents regarding the maintainability or merits of the challenge to Rule 86A, or the infructuous nature of the petitions.
Sections Cited
Rule 86A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 782 of 2020 Petitioner :- M/S Sharp Mint Limited Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Tanmay Sadh,Nishant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Ramesh Chandra Shukla,Vinay Kumar Singh WITH 2. Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 262 of 2021 Petitioner :- M/S Bharat Enterprises Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nishant Mishra,Tanmay Sadh,Yashonidhi Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Gaurav Kumar Chand
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 263 of 2021 Petitioner :- M/S S.J Mentha Products Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nishant Mishra,Tanmay Sadh,Yashonidhi Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Gaurav Kumar Chand
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 264 of 2021 Petitioner :- M/S Shree Balaji Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nishant Mishra,Tanmay Sadh,Yashonidhi Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 267 of 2021 Petitioner :- M/S N.S Mint Products Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nishant Mishra,Tanmay Sadh,Ya
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 Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.