M/ S. Fortunearrt Led Lighting PVT. LTD vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Central Tax
Held
The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the constitutional validity of Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules and its Telangana counterpart. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. I. Ramana Reddy, informed the Court, based on written instructions, that the petitioner wished to withdraw both writ petitions. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed as a sequel.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. FortuneArrt LED Lighting Pvt. Ltd., filed two writ petitions before the Telangana High Court. The petitions challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, uploaded on November 11, 2020, for the periods March 2018 to April 2019 (WP No. 2243 of 2021) and July 2017 to March 2018 (WP No. 2253 of 2021). The core of the challenge was directed at Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and its Telangana counterpart, as amended by various notifications and government orders. The petitioner argued that these amended rules, by denying refunds of unutilized tax credit on input services, were ultra vires the Constitution and the CGST Act.
Key Issues
1. Whether Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, as amended, and its Telangana counterpart, are ultra vires the Constitution of India and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to the extent they deny refunds of unutilized tax credit on input services? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the amended Rule 89(5) is ex-facie ultra vires the Constitution and the CGST Act, unreasonable, discriminatory, illegal, and void. They sought a declaration to this effect and the setting aside of the impugned order. Respondents' Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the petitioner's counsel, on the basis of written instructions, submitted that they wished to withdraw the writ petitions.
Sections Cited
Rule 89(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
[ 32s5 I HIGH COURT.FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE THIRD DAY bF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WP NO: 2243 OF 202'l Between: M/s. FortuneArrt LED Lighting Pvt. Ltd, Plot No. 58-67, Sy. No. 509/1/2, Apparel Export Park, Gundlapochampally, Hyderabad Rep. by its Director, Ms. HemaVatwani. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal GST Division, Medchal Range Hyderabad - 500 01 1
Central Board of lndirect Tax and Customs, GST Policy Wing, Government of lndia, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.
State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-ll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue North Block, New Delhi-1 10001 . ,..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to i) issue an appropriate writ or order or direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mand
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 Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.