|
M/s. Shree
Motors Versus Union of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue)
18.3.2020(Rajasthan High Court)
|
|
The theory of vested
rights and the implication of limitation on the said aspect of vested right has
been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Osram Surya (P) Ltd.
(supra), wherein, while considering the proviso II to Rule 57G of the Act of 1944
it was laid down that by providing limitation the statute has not taken away
any of the vested rights, which accrue to the manufacturers and what is
restricted is the time, within which, the manufacturer has to enforce that
right and, therefore, once the provisions of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, which
prescribe limitation has been upheld, the plea raised pertaining to the denial
of vested right on account of petitioners failing to submit/file Form GST
Tran-1 in time cannot be countenanced.
Nelco Limited vs The Union Of India Through Revenue ... on 20 March, 2020
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, Makarand Subhash Karnik
The time limit stipulated under Rule 117 of the Rules is not ultra vires of the Act. This Rule is traceable to the power conferred under section 164(2) of the Act. The time limit stipulated in Rule 117 is in consonance with the transitional nature of the enactment, and it is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Availment of input tax credit under section 140(1) is a concession attached with conditions of its exercise within the time limit. The IT Grievance Redressal Cell is set up by the GST Council to examine the existence of technical difficulties on the common portal. Sufficient guidance is provided in the definition of technical difficulty in Rule 117(1A). Examining the system log to ascertain the existence of technical difficulties on the common portal for registered persons, is not arbitrary, nor does it lead to a fettering of discretion by the authorities. Those registered persons who could not submit the declaration by the due date because of technical difficulties on the common portal as can be evidenced from the system logs are given an extension on the recommendation of the Council. Where no such evidence is forthcoming, no recommendation is made. In the Petitioner's case, no such proof emerges and, therefore, no direction as sought for can be issued.
