M/S Shivam Jewels vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The petitioner sought withdrawal of the petition. The Court noted that the Apex Court in the case of VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India had upheld the decision of the Madras High Court in Tvl. Transtonneslstroy Afcons Joint Venture vs. Union of India and Others, and had not sustained the order of the Gujarat High Court in VKC Footsteps. Consequently, the learned advocate for the petitioner sought withdrawal. The Court granted the withdrawal as prayed for. The petition was disposed of as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the issues raised.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Shivam Jewels, filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court challenging Rule 89(5) of the CGST/GGST Rules and Notifications No. 26/2018-C.T. and 26/2018-State Tax, dated June 13, 2018. The petitioner sought to declare these provisions ultra vires the CGST/GGST Act and the Constitution of India, as they allegedly denied the grant of refund of unutilized tax credit in respect of tax paid on input services. The petitioner also prayed for directions to allow consideration of accumulated unutilized input tax credit on input services for refund. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner sought withdrawal of the petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether Rule 89(5) of the CGST/GGST Rules, to the extent it denies the grant of refund of unutilized tax credit in respect of tax paid on input services, is ultra vires Section 54(3) of the CGST/GGST Act and/or the Constitution of India? 2. Whether Notification No. 26/2018-C.T. and Notification No. 26/2018-State Tax, dated June 13, 2018, which retrospectively amend Rule 89(5) of the CGST and GGST Rules, are ultra vires Section 54(3) of the CGST/GGST Act and/or the Constitution of India? 3. Whether Section 54(3) of the CGST Act/GGST Act read with the amended Rule 89(5) of the CGST and GGST Rules, to the extent they deny the grant of refund of unutilized tax credit on input services, are in contravention of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that Rule 89(5) and the subsequent notifications were ultra vires the parent Act and the Constitution, as they unfairly denied refunds of input tax credit on input services. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents.
Sections Cited
Section 54(3), Rule 89(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)
The petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs: - “(a) To issue writ of or in the nature of a mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction holding and declaring that the Rule 89(5) the CGST Rules / GGST Rules, to the extent that the said provision denies grant of refund of unutilized tax credit in respect of tax paid on input services is ultra vires and de-hors to Section 54(3) of the C
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 Gujarat High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.