M/S A.M. ENTERPRISES

VERSUS

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. Vide CWP No. 1517 of 2024 dated 20.09.2024 

  Citation: 2024 Taxo.online 2211

The Himachal Pradesh High Court in this questioned the constitutional validity of Rule 86B of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST)/HPGST Rules, 2017, which restricts the use of Input Tax Credit (ITC) from the Electronic Credit Ledger for discharging more than 99% of output tax liability, requiring at least 1% to be paid in cash.

The court found merit in the petitioner’s contention that Rule 86B lacks statutory backing in the HPGST Act, 2017 and appears to be ultra vires. Although Section 49(4) allows the imposition of conditions for the utilization of the Electronic Credit Ledger, and Sections 49A and 49B outline restrictions on the use of ITC, Rule 86B is not explicitly supported by these provisions. The court held that Section 164, which empowers the framing of rules, does not justify Rule 86B without explicit statutory authority.

Further, emphasized that the Electronic Credit Ledger represents the taxpayer's own money, which had already been used to discharge tax liabilities. Given that the tax dues were fully paid, no prejudice had been caused to the authorities. Therefore, it was unnecessary to impose the extreme penalty of GST registration cancellation.

The ruling strongly analysed Rule 86B for being ultra vires the GST Act and questions the authority’s rationale behind cancelling GST registration for ITC usage violations. The ruling emphasized that such penalties must adhere to the proportionality principle and that punitive actions based on incomplete investigations are unjustifiable.

To read more about this Judgement, subscribe today: https://taxo.online/product/taxo-pro/

Already a subscriber, Click to LOGIN & refer to the TAXO GST CASE LAWS

     Or

Call us:- +91 99101 67919, 99996 93426