Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, ITC Investigation Unit VS LGW Industries Limited And Ors

The summary pertains to legal proceedings where an affidavit was filed in support of an application for condonation of delay, and after perusing the affidavit, the delay was condoned. Both parties were represented by learned counsel during the hearing. The appeals in question are against a common judgment and order issued by a Single Judge on December 13, 2021. The respondents, or writ petitioners, had initially sought broader relief in their petition, primarily aiming for a writ of declaration to declare Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act/WBGST Act as unconstitutional. In the event that the Court upheld the provision’s constitutionality, the petitioners requested that it be interpreted to only deny input tax credit in cases where purchasers were proven to be collusive and engaged in sham transactions.

The affidavit submitted in support of the application for condonation of delay has been reviewed, and it is deemed satisfactory in demonstrating sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the delay is condoned, and the application is granted.

The counsel for both parties has been heard extensively.

These appeals pertain to a shared judgment and order issued by the learned Single Judge on December 13, 2021. The respondents/writ petitioners primarily sought broader relief in their writ petition, notably the issuance of a writ of declaration to challenge the constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act/WBGST Act. Additionally, they requested that if the court deems the provision constitutional, it should interpret it to only deny input tax credit in cases where purchasers are proven to engage in collusive or sham transactions. The respondents/writ petitioners also sought the annulment of memos dated August 28, 2019, and November 11, 2019. However, the direction issued by the learned writ court is perceived as rather inconsequential in our assessment.

The document discusses a legal proceeding where an application for condonation of delay was filed and approved, allowing the appeals to proceed. It highlights that the appeals are directed against a judgment issued by a Single Judge on December 13, 2021. The respondents had initially sought significant relief in their writ petition, including declaring a particular section of the CGST Act/WBGST Act as unconstitutional. They also sought to alter the provision to only deny input tax credit in cases of proven collusion or sham transactions. Additionally, they requested the quashing of memos dated August 28, 2019, and November 11, 2019. However, the document notes that the direction issued by the writ court was considered innocuous. The government counsel argues that the writ petition was premature, and other petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the mentioned provision were pending.

The court has reviewed the affidavit submitted in support of the application for condonation of delay and has determined that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay in filing the instant appeals. Therefore, the delay is condoned, and the application for condonation of delay is allowed.

After hearing arguments from both parties’ counsel at length, the court addresses intra-court appeals against a common judgment and order issued by the learned Single Judge on December 13, 2021. The respondents, or writ petitioners, primarily sought a larger relief in their petition, aiming to have Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act/WBGST Act declared unconstitutional. In the event that the provision was deemed constitutional, they requested a reading-over to ensure that input tax credit would only be denied in cases where purchasers were proven to be collusive or engaged in sham transactions. Additionally, they sought the quashing of memos dated August 28, 2019, and November 11, 2019. However, the court views the direction issued by the writ court as innocuous.

The Government counsel for the appellant argues that the writ petition itself was premature, as other writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) were still pending before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the State has filed these appeals on those grounds.

The respondents’ counsel counters, explaining that the reason other writ petitions were segregated and kept pending was due to the specific fact situations of those cases. The only basis for denying input tax credit in the cases disposed of by the impugned order was the retrospective cancellation of selling dealers’ registration. However, the larger relief sought by the respondents, primarily the writ of declaration, was not granted by the Single Judge. The respondents are not appealing against this finding.

In summary, the court has allowed the appeals after condoning the delay and has considered arguments from both sides regarding the constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) of the GST Act, among other issues. While certain relief was not granted by the Single Judge, the appeals move forward based on the specific grounds presented.

The court has reviewed an affidavit supporting an application for condonation of delay and finds sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals, thus allowing the application and condoning the delay. After hearing arguments from both parties, the appeals are against a common judgment and order passed by a Single Judge on December 13, 2021. The respondents initially sought a writ of declaration to declare Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act/WBGST Act as unconstitutional. They also sought relief regarding input tax credit denial only in collusive and sham transactions, as well as quashing of certain memos. The court views the direction issued by the Single Judge as innocuous.

The Government counsel argues that the writ petition was premature, as other petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) are pending. Thus, the State has filed these appeals on those grounds. The respondents’ counsel argues that other writ petitions were segregated due to different fact situations, and the reason for denying input tax credit in their case was the retrospective cancellation of selling dealers’ registration. However, the larger relief of a writ of declaration was not granted by the Single Judge, and the respondents are not appealing against this finding.

The court finds that the directions issued by the Single Judge are in the interest of both the respondents and the revenue, as they allow for verification of documents and correspondence to adjudicate the dispute properly. Therefore, the court sees no need to interfere with the Single Judge’s directions.

Consequently, both appeals (MAT 855 of 2022 and MAT 856 of 2022) are dismissed, with a direction for the respondents to submit an additional set of documents they wish to rely upon.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: