Manoj Kumar Singh vs. Principal Commissioner , Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise

Held

The Court noted that subsequent to the impugned order, Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017, was amended by inserting sub-section (5) via Notification No. 18/2022-Central Tax dated September 28, 2022. This new sub-section provides that for invoices pertaining to Financial Years 2017-18 to 2020-21, registered persons are entitled to take ITC in any return filed up to November 30, 2021. Furthermore, the CBIC issued Circular No. 237/31/2024/GST dated October 15, 2024, clarifying the implementation of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 16. Citing a co-ordinate bench's decision in Vinod Udaipuri vs. Union of India, which also considered the impact of Section 16(5), the Court quashed and set aside the Order-in-Appeal dated December 29, 2023. The matter was remitted to the appellate authority to decide the revenue's appeal afresh, considering the implications of the inserted Section 16(5) and the CBIC Circular. The appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal within four months. All contentions of the parties were left open for the appellate authority to decide.

Facts

The petitioner, Manoj Kumar Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Appeal dated December 29, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Cex, Ranchi. This order allowed an appeal filed by the Respondent No. 2 against an Order-in-Original dated October 12, 2022. The petitioner sought to declare Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, unconstitutional and argued that he had rightly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) for October 2018 to March 2019 on October 24, 2019/October 25, 2019. The petitioner contended that Section 16(4) did not mandate ITC availment within the GSTR 3B filing time limit and that delays in filing returns were subject to late fees under Section 47, not a penalty on ITC.

Key Issues

1. Whether Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and Section 300-A of the Constitution of India, and whether Section 16(2) should prevail over Section 16(4) regarding ITC availment timelines? 2. Whether the petitioner rightly availed ITC for the period October 2018 to March 2019 on October 24, 2019/October 25, 2019, considering the provisions of Section 16(4) and Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued for the unconstitutionality of Section 16(4) and its precedence over Section 16(2). He contended that Section 16(4) did not mandate ITC availment within the GSTR 3B filing deadline and that any delay in filing returns should only attract late fees under Section 47, not a denial of ITC. The petitioner also argued that the amendment to Section 16(4) by Section 100 of the Finance Act, 2022, notified on September 28, 2022, was wrongly considered inapplicable by the appellate authority. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents.