Ms R P M Distributors Through Its Proprietor Mr Mitesh Kumar Drolia vs. Goods And Service Tax Council Through The Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had filed the writ petition against a show-cause notice. The petitioner's counsel submitted that nothing had crystallized against the petitioner after the issuance of the show-cause notice and sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue their remedies as permissible under law. The counsel for the respondents had no serious objection to this request. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue their remedies as permissible under law. The Court did not decide on the merits of the issues raised regarding Section 16(4) and the impact of the notification on ITC availability, as the petition was withdrawn at the preliminary stage.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s R.P.M. Distributors, filed a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice dated January 21, 2020, issued by the Superintendent, CGST & CX, Range-1, Ranchi. The petitioner sought a declaration that the restriction on availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act should be deemed extended due to Notification No. 52/2020/Central Tax dated June 24, 2020, which extended the due dates for furnishing Form GSTR-3B. The petitioner argued that denying ITC for late filing of GSTR-3B, while extending the filing date with a late fee, leads to double taxation and a cascading effect. The petitioner subsequently sought to withdraw the writ petition, stating that nothing had crystallized against them after the issuance of the show-cause notice and sought liberty to pursue other remedies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the extension of due dates for furnishing Form GSTR-3B by Notification No. 52/2020/Central Tax dated 24.06.2020 implicitly extends the time limit for availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) as stipulated in Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, thereby rendering the restriction imposed by Section 16(4) liable to be ignored for the period covered by the notification. 2. Whether the denial of ITC for late furnishing of Form GSTR-3B, while simultaneously extending the return filing date with a late fee, lacks a reasonable nexus to the intended object of the legislation, leading to potential double taxation and a cascading burden on the dealer. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the extension of dates for furnishing GSTR-3B should also extend the period for availing ITC under Section 16(4). They contended that denying ITC for late filing, despite allowing late filing with a fee, is unreasonable and results in double taxation. They relied on Notification No. 52/2020/Central Tax. Respondents' Contention: The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. The judgment notes that the learned counsel for the respondents had no serious objection to the petitioner's request for withdrawal.