Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : M/s Commercial Steel Engineering Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court)
Appeal Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2125 of 2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 27/06/2019
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

M/s Commercial Steel Engineering Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court)

Hon’ble Patna High Court held that ITC availed but not utilized for tax payment doesn’t invite penal consequences of Section 73 of CGST Act, 2017 and interest cannot be recovered on mere availment of ITC which was not utilized

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT

The petitioner by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has made the following prayer:

“ a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 6.11.2018 passed by the respondent no.3 being illegal and without jurisdiction in terms of Section 73(1) of the Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short);

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

7 Comments

  1. Krish Rajendran says:

    The expression used in the Cenvat Credit rules, 2004 was “availed and utilised”. That means penalty can be imposed if only there are both the activities viz. availment and utilisation. In the GST regime, the expression is “availed or utilised”. The legislative intent is to impose penalty for “availment” itself, even if there is no “utilisation”.

  2. KrishRajendran says:

    If availment (without utilisation) is not an offence, why Section 122 has stated that penalty is imposable for credit availed or utilised? What is the necessity for the expression ‘availed’? In that case, what does availment mean? High Court can at best declare the usage of the word ‘availed’ as ultravires. In my opinion, High court has wrongly interpreted the meaning of the term ‘availment’.

  3. Jeetendra says:

    In the header you say that Patna High Court have ruled that ITC availed but not utilized for tax payment doesn’t invite penal consequences of Section 73 of CGST Act, 2017 and interest cannot be recovered on mere availment of ITC which was not utilized. But in the entire judgement it refers to only Sec 73 of BGST Act. Not CGST Act. So is this judgement valid under GST Act?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031