A Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court comprising Chief Justice Akil Qureshi and Justice Sameer Jain upheld the validity and vires of section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 dealing with a refund of taxes.
Background
The petitioner in the present Plea challenged the vires of Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 stating them being ultra vires to the Constitution.
The petitioner had also prayed for a direction to set aside a deficiency memo dated 04.12.2020 as to the writ petition. The petitioner had claimed a refund of the accumulated credit in the ledger account. The competent authority on such claim issued the impugned communication dated 19.12.2020 rejecting the claim and One of the grounds proposed for rejecting the refund claim was that the same was time-barred.
The said authority however before passing the final order issued a show-cause notice and permitted the petitioner to file a reply within 15 days. Accordingly, the petitioner had also filed the reply raising a contention that his refund claim was not subjected to the limitation period. It was admitted that the assistant commissioner had not yet passed a final order on the petitioner’s refund claim.
Observation of the Court
Division Bench while upholding the validity of provisions in question placed reliance on one development made by Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC Online SC 706, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the vires of the statutory provisions under consideration.
Placing reliance on the view expressed by the Apex Court it was said that the petitioner’s challenge to the statutory provisions must come to an end. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the COVID related extensions would apply to time limit provisions contained in the statutes for refund also. At this stage, there is neither pleading nor corresponding prayer for the declaration to this effect.
The court, therefore, refused to go into this question in the present petition. In view of the facts and material on record, it was ordered that the assistant commissioner decide the petitioner’s refund claim bearing in mind the reply of the petitioner. It would be open for the petitioner to raise additional grounds in support of the refund claim by filing a reply within one week from the date of order. If any such further reply is filed, the authority shall take into consideration the same also while taking the final decision.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s Triveni Electrodes v. Union Of India and Ors.
Bench: Chief Justice Akil Qureshi and Justice Sameer Jain
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
