Remanded

M/S A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd. v. the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Mar 2025WP(C)/913/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the validity of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act and an order passed by the Additional Commissioner under Section 73. The Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to decide afresh after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.12.2023 set aside; matter remitted to Respondent No.8 to decide afresh after hearing within 2 months.

M/S A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd. Vs the Union… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010025512025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/913/2025

¶6

M/S A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVEMR. JANARDAN MANI TRIPATHI, ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESSMANAV KALYAN NAMGHAR ROAD, TINSUKIA, ASSAM-786125.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶9

2:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REVENUE) MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NEW BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001.

¶10

3:STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT GROUND FLOOR F-BLOCK JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006.

¶11

4:GST COUNCIL

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

MINISTRY OF FINANCE NEW BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001.

¶15

5:CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON NORTH BLOCK CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI-110001.

¶16

6:GST NETWORK REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON MINISTRY OF FINANCE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001.

¶17

7:COMMISSIONER / JOINT SECRETARY IN THE BOARD CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS NORTH BLOCK CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI-110001.

¶18

8:ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST DIBRUGARH P.O. C.R. BUILDING DIBRUGARH-786003

¶19

For the petitioner : Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocate (through video-conferencing) Mr. H. Betala, Advocate

¶20

For the respondents : Mr. S.C. Keyal, S.C., GST

¶21

Mr. B. Gogoi, S.C., Finance

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

– B E F O R E –

¶24

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶25

07-03-2025

¶26

(Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.)

¶27

This writ petition is preferred on behalf of the petitioner essentially challenging the validity of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter to be referred as “CGST Act”). The petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 31.03.2023 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), whereby the time limit was extended for passing the orders under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 22.12.2023 issued by the respondent No.8 under the provisions of the CGST Act.

¶28

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that with the insertion of sub-section (5) in Section 16 of the CGST Act by way of the Finance Act, 2024, the grievance of the petitioner regarding availment of input tax credit is more or less resolved. However, it is submitted that the impugned order in respect of certain other demands had been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that if this Court deems it appropriate then the matter may be remitted back to the authority concerned for deciding the claim of the petitioner afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to it in accordance with the provisions of the CGST Act.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also submitted that he is already in receipt of instructions from the Department and that the matter may be remitted back to the authority concerned for deciding the issue afresh in accordance with the provisions of the CGST Act, including the new amendment introduced in

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

Section 16(5) of the CGST Act.

¶32

In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the impugned order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the respondent No.8 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent No.8 to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the CGST Act, as amended, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 2(two) months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶33

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶34

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

M/S A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd. v. the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd. v. the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Suanthang Vs State Bank of India and 5 Ors.

Eci Sanjose (Jv) Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

Sri Nitul Gayan Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

The State of Assam and 2 Ors. Vs Jyotishmoy Borah and 2 Ors.

Sudhanshu Ranjan Vs the Union of India and 20 Ors.

S S Communications, Vs the State of Assam and Ors.