2018 Taxo.online 351

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5212 & 7769 of 2018 dated 19.09.2018

M/s CERA SANITARYWARE LTD

UNION OF INDIA

2018

GST

Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017

Section 140

Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

Rule 117

Akil Kureshi, Justice & B.N. Karia, Justice

In favour of revenue

High Court

Gujrat

Represented by: – 

Petitioner: – Mr Anand Nainawati, Mr Nikunt K Raval 

Respondent: –  

Order: – 

1. These petitions arise in common background. We may record facts from Special Civil Application No. 5212 of 2018. Petitioner is engaged in manufacture of ceramic sinks, washbasin etc. The petitioner is also trading in such goods across India. With the introduction of Goods and Service Tax from 01.07.2017 certain structural changes in tax collection were made requiring the legislature to make transitional provision. Section 140 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 enabled the dealers to take credit of duties paid on the goods held by them on the date of implementation of the law. For such purpose, however, necessary declaration had to be made in the terms of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules. Sub-rule (1) therein envisage time limit of 90 days from the appointed day for such purpose. This time limit was extended from time to time and lastly upto 27.12.2017 beyond which the Government of India would not accept any further declaration. Now Sub-Rule (1A) has been inserted in Rule 117 essentially making a provision for extension of time maximum upto 31.03.2019 for making the declaration if due to technical defects such declaration should not be made. 
2. In the context of such time limit provision, challenge was made in case of Special Civil Application No. 4252 of2018 in which the petitioner had argued that no such time limit is envisaged in section 140 of the Act. Rule making authority therefore cannot insert such time limit. Vires of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 117 of CGST Rules was challenged. By separate judgement passed today we have rejected such a challenge. 
3. Case of the petitioner is that the declaration in terms of Rule 117 was filed within time but certain necessary details were not provided. The petitioner would therefore not benefited out of the insertion of Sub-Rule (1A) of Rule 117. It was in this context that the petitioner had also challenged the time limit provision contained in the Rules. Without recording separate reasons since we have already given elaborate reasons in the separate judgement, this challenge is not entertained.
4. In the result, both petitions are dismissed.