Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Atibir Industries Co. Ltd (Unit-Ii) vs The Union Of India & Others on 15 October, 2020

Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh

Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, Anubha Rawat Choudhary

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                     W.P. (T) No. 4233 of 2019

          Atibir Industries Co. Ltd (Unit-II), Giridih        ---    ---  Petitioner
                                                Versus
          The Union of India & others                         ---    ---  Respondents
                                                  ---
          CORAM:          Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
                      Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
                              Through:      Video Conferencing
                                                  ---
          For the Petitioner:               Ms. Lavanya Gadodia, Advocate
          For the Resp-UOI:                 Mr. Niraj Kumar, A.C to ASGI

For the Resp-GSTC & CGST: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate

---

06/ 15.10.2020 Ms. Lavanya Gadodia, appears for the petitioner, Mr. Niraj Kumar, A.C to learned ASGI appears for the Respondent-Union of India. G.S.T Council, CGST Department and its officials are represented by Mr. Ratnesh Kumar.

2. Petitioner has sought for a declaration that the provisions of Section 140(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to the extent that it only permits the amount of CENVAT Credit reflected in the return relating to the period immediately preceding the appointed day to be carried forward as Input Tax Credit, are wholly arbitrary and illegal and having an effect of denying the benefit of ITC under GST regime of such amount of CENVAT Credit to a dealer which it is otherwise entitled for, in spite of the fact that the same is not reflected in its last preceding return. It has also sought a declaration that a dealer is entitled to carry forward and avail the benefit of ITC under the GST regime of such further amounts of CENVAT Credit of eligible duties despite the fact that the said amount of CENVAT Credit was not reflected in the return relating to the period immediately preceding the appointed day on which C.G.S.T Act came into force. Petitioner has also sought a declaration that Rule 120A of G.S.T Rules, 2017 are ultra vires and a camouflage by only permitting a registered dealer to file revised declaration in Form GST TRAN-1 only within the time prescribed under Rule 117 of CGST Rules. Petitioner has also sought a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to claim ITC on Service Tax amounting to Rs. 72,05,687/- paid towards its Service Tax liability for import of inputs/capital goods under Reverse Charge Mechanism pursuant to Notification No. 15/2017-ST dated 13.04.2017. Petitioner has also made prayer for amendment in GSTN Portal in accordance with Rule 120A of G.S.T Rules, 2017 to enable a dealer to submit its revised declaration in Form GST TRAN-1 electronically for availing the benefit of Input Tax Credit, as per Section 140 of C.G.S.T Act. Other consequential relief has also been sought for.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent-GST Council and Central Goods and Service Tax Department submits that he would be filing counter affidavit in the matter. Mr. Niraj Kumar, A.C to learned ASGI submits that he would also be seeking instructions in the matter

4. The instant matter does not fall within the subject matter assigned to this Bench. Therefore, let the matter be listed before the appropriate Division Bench, as per the present distribution of roster.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J) Ranjeet/