Case Law Details
Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Limited Vs Union Of India (Rajasthan High Court)
HC held that that the circular dated 31.03.2020, being a subordinate legislation, is repugnant and conflicting to the parent legislation i.e. Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act and hence, the same cannot be applied to oust the legitimate claim for accumulated ITC refund filed by the petitioner. Otherwise also, the claim for refund of ITC filed by the petitioner was for a period prior to issuance of the circular dated 31.03.2020. Consequently, rejection of the petitioner’s claim for accumulated input tax credit by the respondent No.3 Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Circle Barmer with reference to para 3 of the Circular dated 31.03.2020, is invalid on the face of the record and cannot be sustained.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner herein has approached this Court through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:
“a. issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction of like nature, calling for record of the Petitioner’s case leading to passing of the Impugned Refund rejection Order in Form RFD 06 dated 05.01.2021 (Annexure-1) and after examining its legality and propriety, quash the Impugned Refund rejection Order in FORM RFD 06 dated 05.01.2021 (Annexure-2) as being arbitrary, illegal and constitutionally invalid;
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
