Since vires of Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, has been challenged, let the notices be issued to the Attorney General of India and the Advocate General of the State.
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017—Refund ---The petitioner prayed for direction holding that the restriction imposed under amended Rule 89(5) vide para 2(i) of the Notification No.21/2018-Central Tax dated 18.4.2018 as ultra vires to the Section 54(3) of the Act; for directions for setting aside the Refund Order RFD-06 dated 3.10.2020 to the extent said order rejects the refund claim of the credit availed on input services; for direction to the respondents to sanction the balance refund amount. The court observed that since Rule 89(5) has been challenged, therefore, notices be issued to the Attorney General of India and the Advocate General of the State.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court listed the matter in the week commencing 8.3.2021 in the additional cause list.
Since vires of Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, has been challenged, let the notices be issued to the Attorney General of India and the Advocate General of the State.
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017—Refund ---The petitioner prayed for direction holding that the restriction imposed under amended Rule 89(5) vide para 2(i) of the Notification No.21/2018-Central Tax dated 18.4.2018 as ultra vires to the Section 54(3) of the Act; for directions for setting aside the Refund Order RFD-06 dated 3.10.2020 to the extent said order rejects the refund claim of the credit availed on input services; for direction to the respondents to sanction the balance refund amount. The court observed that since Rule 89(5) has been challenged, therefore, notices be issued to the Attorney General of India and the Advocate General of the State.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court listed the matter in the week commencing 8.3.2021 in the additional cause list.