M/S Jagatjit Automotive Company PVT LTD Represented Through Its Director Rishiraj Ghosh vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary Ministry Of Finance Department Of Revenue

Held

The High Court noted that the issues raised in the writ petition had been considered by the 53rd GST Council Meeting held on June 22, 2024, and that recommendations were made by the Council concerning these matters. The Court held that these recommendations of the GST Council are to be given due weightage in accordance with law. Consequently, the instant writ petition was disposed of in view of the recommendations of the 53rd GST Council Meeting. The Court also stated that if any other matter remained for consideration, it was open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. No specific finding was given on the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) or Rule 61(5), nor was the Order-in-Original quashed, as the matter was disposed of based on the GST Council's recommendations.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jagatjit Automotive Company Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Rule 61(5) of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017, as amended by Notification No. 49/2019. The petitioner argued that these provisions, which restrict the availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) within a time frame and declare GSTR-3B as a return retrospectively, violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution and the basic structure of the GST Act. The petition also sought to quash an Order-in-Original dated 08.04.2024. The High Court was informed that the issues raised in the writ petition were considered by the 53rd GST Council Meeting on June 22, 2024, which made recommendations concerning the petitioner's claims.

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, and the basic structure of the GST Act? 2. Whether Rule 61(5) of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017, as amended by Notification No. 49/2019, which declared GSTR-3B a return under Section 39 of the CGST Act retrospectively from July 1, 2017, is ultra vires the Constitution, particularly Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A, by interfering with the vested right to ITC? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that Section 16(4) is unconstitutional as it arbitrarily restricts ITC, violating the right to equality, freedom to trade, and the right to property. They also argued that the retrospective amendment to Rule 61(5) to deem GSTR-3B as a return unfairly impacts their vested right to claim ITC. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Union of India, CBIC, Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of GST).