Malishka Gold And Jewellery PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Maharashtra And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Malishka Gold and Jewellery Private Limited, is challenging the attachment of its Input Tax Credit (ITC) in its Electronic Credit Ledger, communicated via a letter dated 18 April 2022. The Petitioner relies on a circular dated 2 November 2021 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), which it contends limits such attachment to a period of one year. The Respondents, the State of Maharashtra and others, do not dispute the position stated in the circular but assert their power to extend the embargo. However, no specific order extending the attachment was presented to the Court.
Held
The Court noted that the Petitioner's reliance on the CBIC circular dated 2 November 2021, which limits the attachment of ITC to one year, was not disputed by the Respondents. While the Respondents claimed a power to extend the embargo, they failed to produce any specific order to that effect. Given that the one-year period of attachment expired on 18 April 2023, the Court found the petition to have become infructuous. The Petitioner was informed that if any action is taken by the Respondents in the future, it would be open for the Petitioner to take appropriate steps as advised. The Court did not decide on the Respondents' claimed power to extend the embargo, as the immediate issue of the attachment's duration had passed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the attachment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in the Electronic Credit Ledger is limited to a period of one year, as per the circular dated 2 November 2021 issued by the CBIC? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner contends that the action of attaching its ITC is governed by the CBIC circular dated 2 November 2021, which stipulates that such an embargo can only be for a period of one year. Respondents' Argument: The Respondents acknowledge the position stated in the circular but argue that they possess the power to extend the period of attachment. However, they have not produced any specific order to this effect before the Court.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 21 wp 5434-22-c.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5434 OF 2022
Malishka Gold and Jewellary Private Limited … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and ors. … Respondents --- Mr.Brijesh Pathak, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms.S.D.Vyas, “B” Panel Counsel for the Respondents. --- CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ABHAY AHUJA, JJ. DATE : 26 APRIL 2023. P.C.:-
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The Petitioner is aggrieved by the attachment of the Petitioner’s Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) in Petitioner’s Electronic Credit Ledger by communication dated 18 April 2022. The Petitioner places reliance on the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs dated 2 November 2021 to contend that such action can be only for a period of one year. Priya Soparkar PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR Date: 2023.04.29 11:57:33 +0530
2 21 wp 5434-22-c.doc
On this position, there is no dispute. However, learned counsel for the Respondents states that power exists in the Respondents to extend the said embargo. However, no specific order is placed before us as on today extending the said attachment.
In light of the fact that the one year period is over on 18 April 2023, we dispose of the petition as infructuous. If and when any action is taken by the Respondents, it is open to the Petitioner to take such steps as advised.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
(NITIN JAMDAR, J.) …. Priya Soparkar
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.