Bombay HC dismisses writ petition challenging constitutional validity of Section 140(3)(iv) of CGST Act, refuses to strike down 1 year time limit for transitional credit availment; Holds that for smooth transition from old indirect tax regime to GST regime, some arrangements were required to be made and conditions with respect thereto be imposed; 1 year limit has clear nexus with objective sought to be achieved by GST legislation and therefore, cannot be struck down, holds HC; Refers to SC ruling in Jayam & Co. where it was held that when concession in form of Input Tax Credit is given by a Statute, Legislature has power to make provision stating the form and manner in which such concession is to be allowed and there was no right, inherent or otherwise, vested with dealers to claim ITC benefit;
Observes that transitional credit under GST law is a clear case of concession subject to fulfilment of conditions stipulated u/s 140 of CGST Act; Also finds no force in petitioners’ plea of discrimination of dealers / traders vis-a-vis manufacturers & service providers in violation of Article 14 of Constitution; Says that SC’s 5-Judge Bench Triple Talaq verdict (Shayara Bano) is of no assistance to petitioners; Distinguishes SC decision in Eicher Motors inasmuch as said case pertained to lapsing of MODVAT credit, distinct from question of irregularity and illegality of transitional provisions under GST law.
Evergreen Seamless Tubes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.