Vkc Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd VS Union Of India

The excerpt you provided seems to be from a legal document, likely a court judgment or petition. It appears to be discussing a group of petitions related to a common issue, likely regarding the interpretation or validity of certain rules under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act.

The document mentions that multiple petitions were heard together due to their common issue and are being disposed of in a single judgment for efficiency. One specific petition, labeled as “Special Civil Application No.2792 of 2019,” is being treated as the lead matter for convenience.

The petitioner in this case has requested various reliefs, likely seeking a ruling from the court on the validity or interpretation of a specific rule, namely “amended Rule 8 of the CGST Rules.” The petitioner appears to argue that this rule is ultra vires (beyond the legal power) of Section 54(5) of the CGST Act, particularly in relation to Section 54(3), which pertains to the refund of certain amounts.

It seems like you’re providing an excerpt from a legal document or a court judgment regarding Goods and Service Tax (GST) rules. The petitioner appears to be contesting certain provisions of the CGST Rules, particularly related to input tax credit and refunds.

Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

1. Consolidation of Petitions: The court is handling multiple petitions related to a common issue together and will issue a single judgment for all of them.

2. Lead Matter: One of the petitions, Special Civil Application No.2792 of 2019, is being treated as the primary case or lead matter for the convenience of proceedings.

3. Requested Reliefs: The petitioner is seeking several reliefs, including challenging the validity of certain rules and sections of the CGST Act. They are contesting the amended Rule 8 and Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, as well as Section 164(3) of the Act. They also seek to quash certain refund withholding orders and to prevent coercive actions by the respondents.

4. Business Operations: The petitioner is in the business of manufacturing and supplying footwear, which falls under the GST regime. They procure input services and inputs, paying GST on them, and avail input tax credit. However, most of these inputs and services attract a higher GST rate (12% or 18%) compared to the GST rate on the final product (5%).

The crux of the matter seems to be the petitioner’s contention that certain provisions of the CGST Rules unfairly discriminate against businesses like theirs and are unconstitutional. They argue that the rules should be struck down or amended to provide them with fair treatment and refund of input tax credit.

which a taxpayer can claim a refund of unutilized input tax credit due to an inverted duty structure, where the tax paid on inputs is higher than the tax payable on output supplies. The petitioner in this case, engaged in the manufacture and supply of footwear, faces this scenario where the GST rate paid on inputs and input services is higher than the GST rate applicable on the outward supply of footwear.

The petitioner has challenged the validity of certain amendments to the CGST Rules, arguing that they are ultra vires Section 54(5) of the CGST Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Specifically, the amendments to Rule 8 and Rule 89 of the CGST Rules are contested as treating dealers with accumulated credit on inputs differently from those with accumulated credit on input services. Additionally, the petitioner challenges the constitutionality of Section 164(3) of the CGST Act on grounds of excessive delegation.

The petitioner seeks relief from the court, including a declaration that the amended rules are unconstitutional, a direction to quash refund withholding orders, and a suspension of coercive actions or recovery proceedings by the respondents pending the resolution of the petition.

The court is tasked with examining whether the amendments and provisions in question are consistent with the principles of GST and the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-excessive delegation of powers. If the court finds merit in the petitioner’s arguments, it may grant the requested reliefs and provide guidance on the proper interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CGST Act and Rules.

The text you provided seems to be an excerpt from a legal document, likely a court judgment or a legal opinion related to Goods and Services Tax (GST) regulations in India. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

1. Overview of the Petition: The petitioners are challenging certain rules and provisions related to GST regulations. They seek various reliefs, including declaring certain rules as ultra vires (beyond legal authority), violative of the Constitution, or unconstitutional.

2. Background of the Petitioner: The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying footwear, which falls under the GST regime. They procure input services and materials for their business, paying applicable GST on them. However, the GST rates on these inputs are higher than the rate applicable to their outward supply of footwear, resulting in an accumulation of unutilized credit in their electronic credit ledger.

3. Inverted Duty Structure and Refund Provisions: The GST system aims for effective taxation to occur only at the stage of supply to the final consumer. Refunds are provided for accumulated unutilized input tax credit, particularly in cases of an inverted duty structure, where the tax rate on inputs is higher than that on output supplies. Section 54(3) of the CGST Act provides for such refunds, encompassing both input goods and services.

4. Challenges to Rules and Regulations: The petition challenges the amended Rule 8 of the CGST Rules, which they argue is ultra vires Section 54(5) of the CGST Act. They also argue that the amended Rule 89 of the CGST Rules violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution by treating dealers differently based on their accumulated credit types. Additionally, they challenge Section 164(3) as unconstitutional due to excessive delegation. They seek relief from certain refund withholding orders and request a writ of certiorari or other appropriate legal action.

5. Calculation of Refunds: Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules provides a formula for determining refunds on account of an inverted duty structure. It allows for a proportionate refund of unutilized input tax credit based on the turnover of inverted rated supply of goods compared to the total turnover of the assessee.

This text outlines the legal arguments and context surrounding the petition related to GST regulations in India.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: