GST Course
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Rule 117 of the CGST Rules 2017 is directory, not mandatory

LinkedIn


Court :
Delhi High Court

Brief :
The controversy and the issues involved in the present petition are quite similar to those arising in a batch of petitions which have been heard along with the present petition. However, since the facts of the present case are slightly distinct, it is felt appropriate to decide the present petition separately. 

Citation :
W.P.(C) 13375/2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 21st December, 2020
Pronounced on: 27th May, 2021

W.P.(C) 13375/2019
M/S JAHANPANAH CLUB ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra and Mr. Manish
 Khurana, Advocates.

 versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Bansal, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms. Vipasha Mishra,
Advocate for R-2 & 3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

1. The controversy and the issues involved in the present petition are quite similar to those arising in a batch of petitions which have been heard along with the present petition. However, since the facts of the present case are slightly distinct, it is felt appropriate to decide the present petition separately. 

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner- M/s Jahanpanah Club is operating at Alaknanda, New Delhi. It asserts that it is entitled to claim CENVAT credit on the inputs utilized for providing output services. Initially, due to lack of awareness and knowledge, CENVAT was not availed for the years 2012-13 to 2017-18. The Petitioner was issued show cause notices raising service tax demands on their operations/services. The Petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of W.P.(C.) No. 6343/2018 seeking a direction to the Adjudicating Authority to verify the CENVAT credit claim. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 1st June, 2018 with the following directions:

“Counsel for the respondent states that appropriate orders would be passed on or before 5th June, 2018 and the order would be sent by e-mail to the petitioner and his counsel.

In view of the statement made, counsel for the petitioner states that  the writ petition may be disposed of without commenting on merits. In view of the statement made by the counsel for the parities, the writ petition is disposed of without any comments and observations on merits.”

3. Pursuant thereto, the Adjudicating Authority permitted the Petitioner to avail ITC to the tune of Rs. 18,48,187/- and Krishi Kalyan Cess (‘KKC’) amounting to Rs. 33,599/- for the period from 2015-16 to 2017-18. The claim of CENVAT credit for earlier years was rejected. The Petitioner again approached this Court in W.P.(C.) 8952/2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 27th August, 2018 wherein it was observed: 

To know more in details find the attachment file

 

Guest
on 05 June 2021
Published in LAW
Views : 10
downloaded 6 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags