Trimurthy Sales Corporation VS Union of India

In the case presented, Ms. Lavanya Gadodia represents the petitioner, while Mr. Niraj Kumar, the Assistant Counsel (AC) to the learned Additional Solicitor General of India (ASGI), appears for the Respondent-Union of India. The Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Department and its officials are represented by Mr. Ratnesh Kumar.

The petitioner challenges the constitutionality of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This specific section imposes a time limit for availing Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner argues that this time limit is in violation of several provisions of the Constitution of India, namely:

1. Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.

2. Article 19(1)(g): Protects the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.

3. Article 300A: Provides that no person shall be deprived of their property save by the authority of law.

Additionally, the petitioner contends that the time limit imposed by Section 16(4) undermines the basic structure of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The core argument is that the restriction on the timeframe for availing ITC is arbitrary and disproportionately affects the rights of taxpayers, thereby conflicting with the aforementioned constitutional provisions.

In this case, Ms. Lavanya Gadodia appears for the petitioner, while Mr. Niraj Kumar, an Assistant Counsel to the learned Additional Solicitor General of India (ASGI), represents the Respondent-Union of India. The Central Goods and Services Tax Department and its officials are represented by Mr. Ratnesh Kumar.

The petitioner challenges the constitutionality of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), which imposes a time limit on the availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner argues that this provision violates Articles 14 (right to equality), 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business), and 300A (right to property) of the Constitution of India. Additionally, the petitioner contends that this provision undermines the basic structure of the CGST Act itself.

Furthermore, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the amendment to Rule 61(5) of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017, introduced via Notification No. 49/2019 dated October 9, 2019 (Annexure-6), is unconstitutional. This amendment retroactively declares GSTR-3B to be a valid return under Section 39 of the CGST Act, effective from July 1, 2017. The petitioner claims that this retrospective validation adversely affects their right to avail tax credit and is thus in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India.

In this case, Ms. Lavanya Gadodia represents the petitioner, while Mr. Niraj Kumar, an Assistant Counsel to the learned Additional Solicitor General of India (ASGI), represents the Union of India. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar represents the officials from the Central Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department.

The petitioner has challenged the constitutionality of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This section sets a time limit for claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner argues that this time limit violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Indian Constitution and disrupts the fundamental structure of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Additionally, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the amendment to Rule 61(5) of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017, introduced by Notification No. 49/2019 on October 9, 2019 (Annexure-6), is unconstitutional. This amendment retrospectively validates GSTR-3B as a return under Section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, effective from July 1, 2017. The petitioner contends that this retrospective validation infringes upon their right to avail of tax credits, as protected by Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution.

The petitioner has also disputed a demand letter dated February 13, 2020, which requires the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,28,055.76 availed as ITC for settling their output tax liability. The petitioner claims that this demand is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and its accompanying rules.

Furthermore, the petitioner seeks to annul Annexure-7, a letter dated May 15, 2020, issued by Respondent No. 4. This letter notified the petitioner of the blocking of an amount of Rs. 3,65,195. The petitioner contends that these actions by the respondents are unjust and exceed the legal framework established by the GST Act and Rules.

In this case, Ms. Lavanya Gadodia appears for the petitioner, while Mr. Niraj Kumar, Assistant Counsel to the learned Additional Solicitor General of India (ASGI), represents the Respondent-Union of India. The Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Department and its officials are represented by Mr. Ratnesh Kumar.

The petitioner has challenged the validity of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. This section imposes a time limit on the availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner argues that this section violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India, which pertain to equality before the law, the right to practice any profession, and the right to property, respectively. Additionally, the petitioner contends that this section contradicts the basic structure of the CGST Act, 2017.

The petitioner also seeks a declaration that the amendment to Rule 61(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017, introduced via Notification No. 49/2019 on October 9, 2019, is unconstitutional. This amendment retrospectively validated GSTR-3B returns under Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017, effective from July 1, 2017. The petitioner claims that this amendment infringes on their rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A, as it adversely affects their ability to avail of tax credit.

Furthermore, the petitioner challenges a demand letter dated February 13, 2020, which requires the payment of Rs. 10,28,055.76/- availed as ITC for discharging output tax liability. The petitioner asserts that this demand is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the CGST Act, 2017 and its rules.

Additionally, the petitioner seeks to quash a letter dated May 15, 2020 (Annexure-7), issued by Respondent No. 4, which blocked Rs. 3,65,195/- available in the ITC ledger or Electronic Credit Ledger. The petitioner argues that this action is contrary to Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017, which governs the conditions for using ITC for discharge of tax liability or claiming refunds of unutilized amounts.

Finally, the petitioner requests the setting aside of a letter dated June 17, 2020, also issued by Respondent No. 4, on the grounds that it is arbitrary and inconsistent with the CGST Act, 2017 and the associated rules.

In response, the learned counsel for the Respondent-Central Goods and Service Tax indicated the intention to file a counter affidavit. Mr. Niraj Kumar, Assistant Counsel to the learned ASGI, stated that he would also seek instructions regarding the matter.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: