Dismissed

Ms the Republic Private Limited Represented through Its Director Sri Rahul Budhia v. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue

Jharkhand HC17 Jan 2023WPC/558/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged validity of ITC rules under CGST Act via writ petition seeking declaration of ultra vires. On relief granted upon petitioner seeking withdrawal. Petition dismissed as withdrawn upon filing revised return. Supreme Court precedent cited but not engaged as petition abandoned.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn on filing of revised TRAN-1 return.

Ms the Republic Private Limited Represented through… — GST and Indirect Tax | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(T) No. 558 of 2021

¶3

M/s The Republic Private Limited having its

¶4

registered office at Main Road, Ranchi represented through its Director Sri Rahul Budhia R/O Booty More,

Ranchi, Jharkhand

--- --- Petitioner

Versus

1.Union of India

¶9

(i) Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Dept. of Revenue), New Delhi

¶10

(ii) Through the Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi

¶11

2.The Chief Commissioner of Central Tax, Goods and Service Tax &

¶12

Central Excise, Ranchi

¶13

3.The Commissioner of Central Tax, Goods and Services Tax &

¶14

Central Excise, Ranchi

¶15

4.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Tax Dept., Ranchi

¶16

5.I.T. Nodal Officer, Grievance Related Committee, State Tax, Ranchi

¶17

--- --- Respondents

¶18

CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶19

For the Petitioners : M/s N.K. Pasari, Sidhi Jalan, Advocates

¶20

For the Respondents : M/s P.A.S Pati, Ranjana Mukherjee, Advocate (for CGST)

¶21

: Mr. Laxman Kumar, CGC (for UOI)

¶22

: Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, A.C to A.A.G-II

¶23

05/17.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

The writ petition was preferred with the following prayer:

¶25

a) Writ of declaration and / or any other appropriate writ(s) and / or order(s) and / or direction (s) declaring the provision of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 117 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as ultra vires of Section 140(3) read with Section 164 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 to the extent it prescribes time and manner for availment of transitional credit of eligible taxes and duties paid under the existing laws by the registered person on inputs, inputs contained in semi finished and finished goods held in stock on the appointed day i.e. 01^st July, 2017.

¶26

b) Writ of declaration and / or any other appropriate writ(s) and / or order(s) and /or direction(s) declaring that the retrospective amendment of sub-Section (3) of Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 w.e.f 01-07-2017 by Section 128(c) of Chapter IV of the Finance Act, 2020 empowering the Central Government to prescribe by rules the time and manner of availing transitional credit does not make the impugned sub-Rule (1) of Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 framed by the Central Government by Notification No.3/2017-Central Tax dated 19.06.2017 and / or actions taken thereunder, as valid, in absence of any validation clause;

¶27

c) Writ of declaration and /or any other appropriate writ(s) and /or order(s) and /or direction(s) declaring sub Rule (1) of Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), Article 265 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India;

¶28

d) Writ of declaration and /or any other appropriate writ(s) and /or direction (s) declaring Clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Section 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as ultra vires of subSection (3) of Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as it existed prior to amendment by Section 128(c) of Chapter IV

¶29

-2-

¶30

of the Finance Act, 2020;

¶31

e) Writ of declaration and / or any other appropriate writ(s) and /or order(s) and /or direction (s) declaring that the retrospective amendment of sub-section (3) of Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 w.e.f 01-07-2017 by Section 128(c) of Chapter IV of the Finance Act, 2020 empowering the Central government to prescribe by rules the time and manner of availing transitional credit does not make Clause (b) of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 framed by the Central Government by Notification No.3/2017-Central Tax dated 19-06-2017 and/or actions taken thereunder as valid in absence of any validation clause;

¶32

f) Writ(s) of declaration and/or any other appropriate writ(s) and/or order(s) and/or direction(s) declaring the provisions of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, as directory;

¶33

g) Writ(s) of declaration and/or any other appropriate writ(s) and/or order(s) and/or direction(s) declaring the provisions of Clause (b) of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, as directory;

¶34

h) Writ(s) of declaration and/or any other appropriate writ(s) and/or order(s) declaring retrospective amendment of Sub-Section (3) of Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2017 w.e.f 0107-2017 by Section 128(c) of Chapter IV of Finance Act, 2020, as unconstitutional as it offends Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), Article 265 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India;

¶35

i) Writ(s) and/or order(s) and/or direction(s) directing the Respondents to accept the manual declaration of the Petitioner in FORM GST TRAN-1 furnished vide Letter dated 29-06-2020 (submitted on 29-06-2020) with the Respondent No.5 under the impugned sub-Rule (1) of Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and allow transitional credit of eligible duties(CENVAT Credit) of Rs. 36,92,918.92 under Sub-Section (3) of Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in his electronic credit ledger in respect of inputs etc. held in stock on the appointed day i.e. 01-07-2017;

¶36

j) writs(s) and/or order(s) and/or direction(s) in the nature of prohibition restraining the Respondents, their servants, agents and/or subordinates from resorting to any coercive measure during the pendency of this writ petition before this Hon'ble Court;

¶37

k) writ(s), direction(s) and/or pass necessary order(s) directing the Central Government to issue necessary order for removal of difficulties under Section 172 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017;

¶38

l) To issue order(s), direction(s), writ(s) or any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice;

¶39

m) To issue rule nisi in terms of prayers (a) to (1) above;

¶40

n) To grant ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer under Para (i) and Para (j) above;

¶41

However, learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction seeks to withdraw the writ petition since the petitioner has filed its revised TRAN-1.

¶42

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that otherwise also the case is covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the

¶43

-3-

¶44

case of Union of India and another versus Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. and another [2022 VIL 38 SC] vide judgment dated 22.07.2022 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 32709-32710 of 2018 and analogous cases.

¶45

However, in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶46

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, A.C.J.)

¶47

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶48

A.Mohanty

Ms the Republic Private Limited Represented through Its Director Sri Rahul Budhia v. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms the Republic Private Limited Represented through Its Director Sri Rahul Budhia v. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Akshay Steel Works Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Namely Sri Rajender Sachdev Vs Comercial Taxes

Ms Singhbhum Technocast Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Namely Sri Sanjiv Kumar Vs Comercial Taxes

Ms Dhirajlal Velji Atha HUF through Its Authorized Signatory Nalini Kumar Vs the Union of India through Its Pr Secretary Ministry of Finance Deptt of Revenue

Ms Budhia Agencies Private Limited through Its Director Sri Rahul Budhia Vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue

Kaustubha Bhushan Giri Vs Anjali Giri

Ms B N Dutta Represented through One of Its Partner Sri Ashwini Kumar Dutta Vs the Commissioner of Central Goods Service Tax and Central Excise