Aap And Co., Chartered Accounts VS Union Of India

The note under consideration pertains to the representation of minutes during a legal proceeding. It specifically addresses an omission noted in a judgment and order issued by the court on June 24, 2019, in a case identified as Special Civil Application No.18962 of 2018. The concern raised is regarding the absence of Mr. Vinay Shraff’s name in the appearance column of the aforementioned judgment, despite his participation as counsel alongside other advocates on record.

To rectify this oversight, it is instructed that the court registry amends the record to include Mr. Vinay Shraff’s name as one of the learned counsels who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, along with the other advocates already listed. This directive aims to accurately reflect the legal representation involved in the case and ensure that all pertinent individuals are duly acknowledged for their participation in the proceedings.

In reviewing the minutes, it has been noted that in a previous court judgment and order dated June 24, 2019, in Special Civil Application No.18962 of 2018, the name of Mr. Vinay Shraff was not included in the list of learned counsel who appeared alongside the advocates on record. The court directs the registry to include Mr. Vinay Shraff’s name as one of the counsel appearing for the petitioner.

The current writ-application, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, requests several reliefs. Firstly, it seeks to quash and set aside a press release dated October 18, 2018, particularly concerning its clarification in paragraph 3 regarding the last date for availing input tax credit related to invoices issued between July 2017 and March 2018. Secondly, it requests directives for the authorities to allow and consider input tax credit for invoices issued during the mentioned period until the due date for filing returns in Form GSTR-3 or the annual return, whichever comes earlier. Thirdly, it seeks prohibitive orders against the respondents, their servants, agents, or subordinates from resorting to coercive measures during the pendency of the writ petition before the court. Finally, it asks for any other relief the court deems appropriate based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

The document discusses a legal matter regarding the interpretation and application of certain provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GGST Act). It begins by addressing an oversight in a court order where a certain individual’s name was not included in the appearance column, rectifying it by instructing the registry to include the name of Mr. Vinay Shraff as the counsel who appeared with other advocates on record for the petitioner.

Moving on to the substance of the case, the writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks several reliefs. Firstly, it aims to quash and set aside a specific press release dated 18th October 2018, particularly regarding its clarification on the last date for availing input tax credit related to invoices issued from July 2017 to March 2018. Secondly, it requests directions to allow input tax credit for invoices issued during that period until the due date for filing returns in Form GSTR-3 or the annual return, whichever is earlier. Additionally, it seeks prohibitory measures against coercive actions by the respondents during the case’s pendency and requests other appropriate relief as deemed fit by the court.

The applicant, a practicing Chartered Accountant with a GST registration, argues that Section 16(4) of the CGST Act/GGST Act restricts the entitlement to input tax credit after the due date for filing returns for the relevant financial year. This section is quoted to support the applicant’s contention.

The applicant further outlines the facts of the case, emphasizing the importance of timely clarification and allowance of input tax credit to ensure compliance with GST laws and the smooth functioning of businesses. The relief sought is justified as necessary for safeguarding the applicant’s rights and ensuring the proper interpretation and application of GST laws.

In conclusion, the writ-application seeks judicial intervention to rectify what the applicant perceives as an erroneous interpretation of GST laws by the respondents, aiming to uphold fairness and compliance within the taxation framework.

The note discusses a case filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution by a practicing Chartered Accountant regarding certain provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GGST Act). The petitioner seeks several reliefs, primarily challenging a press release regarding the deadline for availing input tax credit.

The petitioner argues that Section 16(4) of the CGST Act/GGST Act prohibits the entitlement to input tax credit after the due date for filing returns for the month of September following the end of the financial year or the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier. They contend that this provision implies that the last date for claiming input tax credit for invoices or debit notes relating to a financial year is the due date for filing returns in September or the annual return filing, whichever comes first.

Furthermore, the petitioner highlights Section 39(1) of the CGST Act/GGST Act, which mandates every registered person (excluding certain categories) to file a monthly return electronically by the 20th day of the succeeding month. They argue that this provision is crucial for determining the deadline for availing input tax credit.

In light of these arguments, the petitioner seeks various reliefs, including the annulment of a press release stating the deadline for availing input tax credit and a directive for allowing input tax credit related to invoices issued during a specific period.

The note also addresses an administrative issue regarding the representation of Mr. Vinay Shraff, whose name was inadvertently omitted from the appearance column in a previous court order. The court directs the registry to rectify this omission.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: