Issues to watch: Ultra Vires (GST)

Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court: Rule 61(5) 

In Bharti Airtel Limited v. Union of India and Ors., CWP-11024-2021, Retrospective amendment under rule 61(5) challenged. 

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court: Rule 36(4) 

In Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and 4 Ors., 433 of 2021, the petitioner-company challenges the ITC restriction as placed under Rule 36(4). 

Similar issues to watch: Sales Tax Bar Association (Regd.) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 13097/2019 [Hon’ble Delhi High Court], Himanshu Mohta and Associates vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 13154/2019 [Hon’ble Delhi High Court], M/s Surat Mercantile Association vs. Union of India, R/SCA No. 15329 of 2020 [Hon’ble Gujarat High Court]. 

Hon’ble Gujarat High Court: Rule 89(5) 

In Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the petitioner-company has challenged Rule 89(5) restricting refund on input-service under Inverted Duty Structure. 

Note: We already have contrary judgments on this issue by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court (in VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd.) and Hon’ble Madras High Court (in Transtonnelstroy Afcons Joint Venture) 

Hon’ble Madras High Court: Section 168 and Rule 90(3) 

In W.P.Nos.15277, 15281, 15283, 15284, 15285, 15287 and 15287 of 2021, the petitioners have challenged Section 168 for providing unfettered power to CBIC to issue Circulars that are binding on the adjudicating and appellate authorities. And also challenged Rule 90(3) and Para 12 of the Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 for being ultra vires the CGST Act.  

Disclaimer: This is source-based information, as the orders issuing notices in the above writ petitions have no relevant information to verify the challenges.  

Facebook Twitter Linkedin
Scroll Up
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap