Bombay High Court Disposes of Writ Petitions Challenging Section 140(3)(iv) of CGST Act on Transitional Credit for Pre-GST Stock. Petitioners Argue Arbitrary Cut-Off Date Leads to Double Taxation and Discrimination.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

A group of manufacturers and traders, including JCB India Limited, manufacturers of excavators and loaders, filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 140(3)(iv) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners maintained a depot where demo machines cleared from the factory on payment of excise duty were stored and sold after a business cycle of two to three years. As on the GST implementation date of 1 July 2017, the petitioners had stock of such machines that were older than twelve months, i.e., procured before 30 June 2016. Under the transitional provisions, Section 140(3) allowed input tax credit only for goods held in stock that were purchased after 30 June 2016. The petitioners argued that this cut-off was arbitrary and discriminatory, as they had valid duty-paid documents but were denied credit solely on the ground of the age of stock. This, they contended, resulted in double taxation, as excise duty already paid could not be transitioned, and GST would be levied again on supply. They submitted that the denial frustrated the GST objective of eliminating cascading effect and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondents, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, filed an affidavit supporting the provision. The High Court issued rule, heard the parties together, and disposed of the petitions by a common judgment. The detailed reasoning and final decision are not captured in the provided excerpt.

Issue of Consideration

Whether Clause (iv) of Section 140(3) of the CGST Act is unconstitutional and arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution, by imposing a cut-off date of 30-06-2016 for transitional input tax credit on stock.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Law Points

  • Transitional provisions under GST must ensure seamless input tax credit
  • cut-off date for credit eligibility should not be arbitrary
  • denial of credit for stock older than one year leads to double taxation and violates Article 14
  • legislative classification must have reasonable nexus with object
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (03) 43

Writ Petition No.3142 of 2017 and connected petitions (Nos. 3186, 3212, 3187, 12378, 14245 of 2017)

2018-03-20

S.C. Dharmadhikari, Prakash D. Naik

2018:BHC-OS:4405-DB

Vikram Nankani, Prithviraj Chauhan, Ritesh Jain, Raghuraman, Raghvendra, Prabhakar K. Shetty, Abhishek Adke; Anil C. Singh, Pradeep S. Jetly, M. Dwivedi, Jitendra B. Mishra, Geetika Gandhi

JCB India Limited, Suyaan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Siddharth Auto Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Ratnapprabbha Motors, Evergreen Seamless Pipes and Tubes Pvt. Ltd., Avantor Performance Materials India Limited

Union of India, Goods and Service Tax Council, Commissioner Central Tax GST Pune 1, Commissioner Central Tax GST Nasik, Commissioner Central Tax GST Aurangabad, Central Board of Excise and Customs

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to constitutional validity of Section 140(3)(iv) of the CGST Act, 2017 imposing a cut-off date for transitional input tax credit on stock held on appointed day, resulting in double taxation and discrimination.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought quashing of the impugned clause and direction to allow transition of credit for stock held prior to 30-06-2016.

Filing Reason

The cut-off date of 30-06-2016 for goods in stock to be eligible for input tax credit under Section 140(3) arbitrarily excluded stock older than one year, causing double taxation and violating Article 14.

Issues

Whether Clause (iv) of Section 140(3) of the CGST Act is ultra vires the Constitution, being arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14. Whether the denial of transitional input tax credit for goods held in stock for more than one year prior to the appointed day results in double taxation and defeats the objective of the GST regime to eliminate cascading effect.

Submissions/Arguments

The cut-off date of 30-06-2016 for stock eligibility undermines the GST objective of seamless credit and violates Article 14 by discriminating between manufacturers and depot/traders. Denying credit for stock older than one year, though duty-paid documents exist and the stock cycle is longer, forces double taxation and compels impossible compliance. The provision arbitrarily limits credit to goods purchased after 30-06-2016, ignoring valid excise duty payments on older stock, leading to cascading tax burden.

Judgment Excerpts

...the petitioner will have to bear the burden of double taxation in case it is not allowed to transition the credit of central excise duty paid by it at the time of removal from the factory for demo machines. (Para 7) ...denying the credit to the petitioner on such grounds is grossly arbitrary and bad in law. (Para 8) ...the CGST Act provides for the input tax credit eligibility in terms of these transitional provisions. Section 140(1) of the CGST Act inter alia provides that a manufacturer will be entitled to carry forward the closing balance of CENVAT credit, subject to certain conditions. (Para 6)

Procedural History

Several writ petitions were filed by different petitioners challenging the same provision. The High Court issued Rule, and respondents waived service. An affidavit in reply was filed in one petition, reflecting the common stand of the respondents. With consent, all petitions were heard together and disposed of by common judgment.

Acts & Sections

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: 140(1), 140(3)(iv)
  • Central Excise Act, 1944:
  • Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act:
  • CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Disposes of Writ Petitions Challenging Section 140(3)(iv) of CGST Act on Transitional Credit for Pre-GST Stock. Petitioners Argue Arbitrary Cut-Off Date Leads to Double Taxation and Discrimination.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeals in Workmen's Compensation Cases — Employer-Employee Relationship Established Despite Vehicle Ownership Dispute. The court upheld the Commissioner's order directing the insurance company to pay...