Ms Sri Sai Krishna Constructions Represented By Its Managing Partner Lawful Attorney Smt G Prathima vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary Ministry Of Finance Deptt Of Revenue

Held

The Court noted that the issues raised in the writ applications had been considered in the 53rd GST Council Meeting held on June 22, 2024. The Council had made recommendations concerning the claims made in these writ petitions. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ applications in view of these recommendations. The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue their remedies before the appropriate forum if any matter remained for consideration. The specific findings on the vires of Section 16(4) and Rule 61(5) were not detailed, as the disposal was based on the GST Council's recommendations.

Facts

The petitioners, including M/s B D Enterprises and others, filed writ petitions challenging Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and an amendment to Rule 61(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017, inserted via Notification No. 49 of 2019. They argued these provisions were ultra vires, violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution. The petitions also sought to quash show cause notices issued under Form DRC-01. The matters were heard by the Jharkhand High Court. The specific tax periods and amounts in dispute were not detailed in the provided excerpt, but the core challenge was to the time limits for availing Input Tax Credit (ITC).

Key Issues

1. Whether Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which imposes a time limit for availing Input Tax Credit (ITC), is ultra vires the Constitution of India, specifically Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A. 2. Whether the amendment to Rule 61(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, inserted by Clause 4(a) of Notification No. 49 of 2019, is ultra vires the Constitution and consequentially liable to be quashed. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the amendment to Rule 61(5) are unconstitutional. They argued that imposing a time limit for ITC availment infringes upon their fundamental rights to carry on trade or business and to property, and violates the principle of equality. They sought to declare these provisions void and quash the related show cause notices. Revenue's arguments: The judgment excerpt does not record specific arguments made by the respondents (Union of India and GST authorities).