M/S Saluja Motors PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Held

The Court did not decide the substantive issues raised by the petitioner regarding the interpretation and validity of Condition (iv) of Section 140(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Instead, the petitioner's counsel informed the Court about typographical errors in the writ petition. Consequently, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the present writ petition with the liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action, providing correct and better particulars. The Court granted this request. Therefore, no finding was reached on the constitutionality or interpretation of the said condition, nor was any ratio decidendi established on the merits of the ITC claim. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Saluja Motors Private Limited, filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The petition challenged Condition (iv) of Section 140(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. This condition pertains to the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for eligible duties paid on inputs held in stock, if such inputs were purchased more than 12 months prior to the appointed day of the GST Act. The petitioner sought to declare this time limit as directory and allow ITC upon production of necessary evidence. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel stated that certain typographical errors had occurred in the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether Condition (iv) of Section 140(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which denies Input Tax Credit (ITC) for inputs held in stock purchased more than 12 months prior to the appointed day, is unconstitutional or requires reading down. 2. Whether the time limit specified in Condition (iv) of Section 140(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, should be treated as directory rather than mandatory, allowing for ITC if the registered person can produce necessary evidence. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that Condition (iv) of Section 140(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, should be read down to be directory. They contended that a registered person should be entitled to claim ITC if they can provide the necessary evidence, irrespective of the 12-month purchase limitation preceding the appointed day. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Union of India and another).