Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation LTD Thro Its General Manager Finance Rajeev Kumar Singh vs. The State Of Jharkhand Thorugh The Secretary Deptt Of State Tax

Held

The Court noted that the issues raised in the writ petition had been considered by the 53rd GST Council Meeting held on June 22, 2024. The Council made recommendations concerning these matters. The Court acknowledged that these recommendations should be given due weightage in accordance with the law. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of in view of the recommendations made by the 53rd GST Council Meeting. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue further remedies before the appropriate forum if any matter remained for consideration. No specific finding was made on the vires of Section 16(4) or Rule 61(5) by the Court itself, as the matter was resolved based on the GST Council's recommendations.

Facts

The petitioner, Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation Limited, filed a writ petition challenging Section 16(4) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and an amendment to Rule 61(5) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Rules, 2017. The petitioner argued that Section 16(4), which imposes a time limit for availing Input Tax Credit (ITC), and the amendment making GSTR-3B a valid return retrospectively, violated constitutional provisions and interfered with their vested right to ITC. The petitioner also sought to quash a show cause notice issued in Form GST DRC-01 dated 02.08.2021. The court was informed that the issues raised in the petition were considered by the 53rd GST Council Meeting.

Key Issues

1. Whether Section 16(4) of the Jharkhand 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, and the basic structure of the Act? 2. Whether the amendment to Rule 61(5) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Rules, 2017, making GSTR-3B a valid return retrospectively from 01.07.2017, is ultra vires the Constitution of India, specifically Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A, by interfering with the petitioner's vested right to ITC? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that Section 16(4) and the amendment to Rule 61(5) were unconstitutional and violated their fundamental rights and vested rights to ITC. They argued these provisions interfered with their ability to claim legitimate tax credits. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (State of Jharkhand and its tax authorities).