Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
This writ petition stands disposed of, in terms of the above observation
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. This writ petition stands disposed of, in terms of the above observation and direction. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Judgment
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. T. Y. Bhutia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. M. K. Boro, learned Standing Counsel, CGST & CX/respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4.
By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the vires of Section 16(4) of the GST Act, 2017 and the Order-in-Original dated 15.02.2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Itanagar Division/respondent No. 3, whereby, ITC refund claimed by the petitioner for a period from January, 2020 to March, 2020, has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner availed the Input Tax Credit (ITC) wrongly in contravention to Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017, and the applicable Arunachal Pradesh GST Act, 2017.
During the pendency of the writ petition, vide Gazette Notification dated
16.08.2024, an amendment in Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax, has been brought in with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017 by inserting Sub-Section (5) in Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Page No.# 4/5
Section 16(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 reads as under:
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), in respect of an invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both pertaining to the Financial Years 2017-18, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the registered person shall be entitled to take input tax credit in any return under Section 39 which is filed up to the thirtieth day of November, 2021.
The learned counsels appearing for the respondents are in agreement that in view of the insertion of Sub-Section (5) in Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the grievance raised by the petitioner has been redressed.
Dr. A. Saraf, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submits that in view of the amendment brought in Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by inserting Sub-Section (5), the impugned Order-in-Original dated 15.02.2022 passed by the respondent authorities may be set aside and matter be remanded back and direction may be issued to pass an appropriate order in view of insertion of Sub-Section (5) of Section 16 of Central Good and Services Tax Act, 2017.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and also considering the amendment brought in Section 16 of the Central Goods Page No.# 5/5 and Services Tax Act, 2017, by inserting Sub-Section (5), the impugned order in original dated 15.02.2022 is hereby set aside without adjudicating the said orders on merit.
The respondent authorities are directed to consider and pass an appropriate order taking into consideration of the provision of Sub-Section (5) of Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, vide Amendment (Finance Act, 2024) dated 16.08.2024.
Operative part
This writ petition stands disposed of, in terms of the above observation and direction. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This writ petition stands disposed of, in terms of the above observation
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Partnership Act, 1932; IGST Act, 2017 — s. 20; Arunachal Pradesh GST Act, 2017; Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — ss. 16, 16(5); Central Good and Services Tax Act, 2017 — s. 16; Amendment Finance Act, 2024.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.