HCC Samsung Joint Venture Vs Union of India & Ors.
Date: August 23, 2024
Subject Matter
ITC claim to be reconsidered under the newly introduced Section 16(5)
Summary
The petitioner challenged Section 16(4) of the CGST and DGST Acts regarding the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to delays in compliance. They contested the constitutional validity of this provision after their claim for ITC was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. - The introduction of Section 16(5) through the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, which potentially amends or clarifies the conditions for claiming ITC, has resolved the petitioner's grievances. - During the court proceedings, both parties agreed that it would be appropriate for the matter to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration in light of the recent amendments, as the petitioner decided not to pursue the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 16(4) any further. - The Hon’ble Delhi High Court accepted this recommendation, set aside the impugned order, and directed that the matter be reviewed in light of the amended provisions of Section 16 of the GST Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the CGST Act)/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the DGST Act). The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) whereby the petitioner’s claim for input tax credit has been denied, by virtue of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act/DGST Act, on account of delay.
2. The learned counsel for the parties state that in view of the enactment of Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, whereby sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the CGST Act/DGST Act was introduced, their grievance would stand satisfied if the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to consider afresh in light of the amendments introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also states that he is not pressing the challenge to the constitutional validity of provision of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act/DGST Act.
4. Mr. Arnav Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 to 5 states that he has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored before the Adjudicating Authority to consider afresh, in view of the amended Section 16 of CGST Act/DGST Act.
5. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the same in the light of enactment of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024.