Case Law Details
Union of India Vs Filco Trade Centre Pvt Ltd (Supreme Court)
The instant petition was filed challenging the Constitutional vires of Section 140(3)(iv) of CGST Act, 2017 – The Gujarat High Court held that no just, reasonable or plausible reason is shown for making such retrospective provision taking away the vested rights – clause (iv) is unconstitutional – Bombay High Court decision in JCB India Ltd. – 2018-TIOL-23-HC-MUM-GST disagreed – at the request of counsel for the Revenue this judgement stayed up to 31.10.2018.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that- The Revenue’s counsel highlights a difference of opinion between the High Courts. The Bombay High Court took a different view in favor of the Revenue but the same was not followed by the Gujarat High Court in its judgment. Notices be issued within six weeks. Meanwhile, operation of the Gujarat High Court’s decision is stayed.
Read Gujarat HC decision –One year restriction to claim transitional credit is unconstitutional: Gujarat HC
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT / ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:-
It is contended by learned Solicitor General of India that there is a difference of opinion between the High Courts. Bombay High Court had taken a different view which is in favour of the petitioner(s) but the same is not followed by the Gujarat High Court in the impugned judgment.
Issue notice, returnable in six weeks.
In the meantime, operation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed.
