GST — Input Tax Credit — Section 16(4) & 16(5) — Limitation — Extended period (Paras 2, 4, 5, 6) Section 16(5) of the GST Act operates as a non obstante provision overriding Section 16(4), and extends the time limit for availing input tax credit for specified financial years up to 30.11.2021. Claims falling within the covered period cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation under Section 16(4).

 

GST — Input Tax Credit — Section 16(4) & 16(5) — Limitation — Extended period (Paras 2, 4, 5, 6)

Section 16(5) of the GST Act operates as a non obstante provision overriding Section 16(4), and extends the time limit for availing input tax credit for specified financial years up to 30.11.2021. Claims falling within the covered period cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation under Section 16(4).

---

INPUT TAX CREDIT — Eligibility — Filing within extended time (Paras 6)

Where the claim for input tax credit for the financial year 2019–2020 is filed prior to 30.11.2021, such claim is within the permissible extended period under Section 16(5) and cannot be denied as time-barred.

---

ASSESSMENT ORDER — Rejection of ITC — Illegality (Paras 2, 6, 7)

Rejection of input tax credit solely on the basis that the claim was filed beyond the time stipulated under Section 16(4), without considering the extended period under Section 16(5), is illegal and unsustainable.

---

WRIT JURISDICTION — Interference — Validity of tax orders (Paras 6, 7)

The High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, can set aside assessment orders that are contrary to statutory provisions and remand the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

REMAND — Fresh consideration — Direction (Para 7)

Upon setting aside the impugned orders, the matter is to be remitted to the Assessing Authority for reconsideration of the claim in light of the correct statutory position.

---

FINAL RESULT (Para 7)

Writ Petition allowed — Orders rejecting input tax credit set aside — Matter remanded for fresh decision — No costs. 

Reopening of evidence and recall of witness — Purpose — Scope (Paras 9, 12) Reopening of evidence and recall of witness must be justified by necessity for adjudication of disputed facts. Where the purpose sought to be achieved can be addressed without such steps, reopening and recall become redundant and are liable to be refused.

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — Reopening of evidence and recall of witness — Purpose — Scope (Paras 9, 12)

Reopening of evidence and recall of witness must be justified by necessity for adjudication of disputed facts. Where the purpose sought to be achieved can be addressed without such steps, reopening and recall become redundant and are liable to be refused.

---

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 — Section 58 — Admission — Effect (Paras 10, 11)

Facts admitted by a party do not require proof. Where a party admits dissimilarity of thumb impressions and offers an explanation for such dissimilarity, there is no necessity to establish the same through expert evidence.

---

EXPERT EVIDENCE — Necessity — Test (Paras 11, 12)

Reference to handwriting or fingerprint expert is not automatic. Where the fact sought to be proved is already admitted or not in dispute, sending documents for expert opinion is unnecessary.

---

REOPENING — For expert opinion — Not mandatory (Para 12)

For obtaining expert opinion on documents, reopening of evidence or recalling of witnesses is not a prerequisite, especially when such exercise does not materially advance the case.

---

DISCRETION OF TRIAL COURT — Interference — Scope (Paras 12, 13)

The decision of the trial Court refusing to reopen evidence or send documents for expert opinion, when based on proper appreciation of facts and necessity, does not warrant interference under Article 227.

---

REVISION — Article 227 — Limited scope (Para 13)

Supervisory jurisdiction is not to be exercised to reappreciate factual discretion of the trial Court unless the order suffers from patent illegality or perversity.

---

FINAL RESULT (Para 14)

Civil Revision Petitions dismissed — Orders refusing reopening, recall, and expert reference upheld — No costs. 

Order XLI Rule 25 — Framing of additional issues in appeal — Scope (Paras 3, 13) The appellate Court is not bound to frame additional issues where the issues sought are already covered by existing issues or have been effectively considered by the trial Court. Framing of additional issues is discretionary and not warranted merely because a party raises a contention at the appellate stage. LIMITATION — Section 3 Limitation Act — Duty of Court (Paras 10, 12) Under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, the Court has a mandatory duty to consider limitation suo motu, even in the absence of a specific plea. Failure to frame a specific issue on limitation does not preclude the Court from deciding the question.

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — Order XLI Rule 25 — Framing of additional issues in appeal — Scope (Paras 3, 13)

The appellate Court is not bound to frame additional issues where the issues sought are already covered by existing issues or have been effectively considered by the trial Court. Framing of additional issues is discretionary and not warranted merely because a party raises a contention at the appellate stage.

---

LIMITATION — Section 3 Limitation Act — Duty of Court (Paras 10, 12)

Under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, the Court has a mandatory duty to consider limitation suo motu, even in the absence of a specific plea. Failure to frame a specific issue on limitation does not preclude the Court from deciding the question.

---

LIMITATION — Nature — Mixed question of fact and law (Paras 8, 11)

Limitation is generally a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be decided as a preliminary issue unless it is apparent on the face of the plaint. Such issues require consideration based on evidence during trial.

---

FRAMING OF ISSUES — Necessity — Test (Paras 11, 13)

Where the trial Court has already considered the substance of a plea, absence of a formally framed issue does not vitiate the judgment. Additional issues need not be framed if they are redundant or already subsumed within existing issues.

---

APPELLATE COURT — Duty — Reappreciation of issues (Paras 12, 13)

The appellate Court is obliged to independently consider questions such as limitation while deciding the appeal, irrespective of whether a separate issue was framed by the trial Court.

---

REVISION — Article 227 — Interference — Limited scope (Para 13)

Where the appellate Court has exercised discretion properly and no jurisdictional error or illegality is shown, the High Court will not interfere under Article 227.

---

FINAL RESULT (Para 14)

Civil Revision Petition dismissed — No infirmity in refusal to frame additional issues — No costs.

GST — Assessment order — Absence of DIN — Validity (Paras 2, 3, 12) Orders passed under the GST regime without mentioning a valid Document Identification Number (DIN) or RFN are vitiated and liable to be set aside. Absence of DIN is a fundamental defect affecting the validity of the proceedings.

 

GST — Assessment order — Absence of DIN — Validity (Paras 2, 3, 12)

Orders passed under the GST regime without mentioning a valid Document Identification Number (DIN) or RFN are vitiated and liable to be set aside. Absence of DIN is a fundamental defect affecting the validity of the proceedings.

---

SERVICE OF ORDER — GST Act — Section 169(1)(d) — Upload on portal (Paras 5, 6, 7)

Uploading of orders on the GST portal is recognized as a mode of service under Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act. However, practical difficulties in accessing such portal-based service have been judicially noticed, and strict reliance on such mode may not always be appropriate in all cases.

---

DELAY — Writ jurisdiction — Approach of Court (Paras 4, 8, 10, 11)

Delay in approaching the Court, even if not satisfactorily explained, may be condoned in cases where the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, such as absence of DIN. The Court may adopt a balanced approach considering systemic difficulties under GST regime.

---

WRIT JURISDICTION — Conditional interference — Deposit requirement (Para 11)

Relief in writ petitions challenging GST assessments, particularly when filed with delay, can be granted subject to conditions such as deposit of a portion (e.g., 20%) of the disputed tax, to balance equities between taxpayer and revenue.

---

REMAND — Fresh assessment — Opportunity of hearing (Para 12)

Where the assessment order is set aside for procedural illegality, the matter can be remanded to the Assessing Authority for fresh consideration after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

---

ADJUSTMENT OF PAYMENTS — Interim protection (Para 12)

Amounts already paid or recovered pursuant to the impugned order shall be adjusted against the conditional deposit required by the Court.

---

LIMITATION — Exclusion of time (Para 13)

The period during which the writ petition was pending shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation in subsequent proceedings before the Assessing Authority.

---

FINAL RESULT (Para 14)

Writ Petition disposed of — Impugned GST orders set aside — Matter remanded subject to deposit of 20% of disputed tax — No costs.

Order VI Rule 17 — Amendment of plaint — Scope (Paras 9, 12) Amendment of pleadings is permissible provided it does not alter the fundamental nature or character of the suit or introduce a completely new cause of action. Inclusion of a consequential relief already implicit in the original pleadings does not amount to change in nature of the suit.

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — Order VI Rule 17 — Amendment of plaint — Scope (Paras 9, 12)

Amendment of pleadings is permissible provided it does not alter the fundamental nature or character of the suit or introduce a completely new cause of action. Inclusion of a consequential relief already implicit in the original pleadings does not amount to change in nature of the suit.

---

AMENDMENT — CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF — Recovery of possession (Paras 7, 11, 12)

Where the original plaint contains averments of dispossession and seeks removal of superstructure, addition of relief of recovery of possession by amendment is merely consequential and does not change the basic structure of the suit.

---

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 — Section 34 — Requirement to seek further relief (Para 13)

Where the plaintiff is able to seek further relief, such as recovery of possession, a mere declaration and injunction may be insufficient. Amendment to include such consequential relief is necessary to avoid failure of the suit on technical grounds.

---

LIMITATION — Amendment for possession — Within time (Para 14)

An amendment seeking recovery of possession can be allowed if filed within the prescribed limitation period of 12 years from dispossession. Where the amendment is sought within such period, it is not barred by limitation.

---

INCONSISTENT PLEAS — Plaintiffs — Restriction (Paras 10, 15)

While defendants may raise inconsistent pleas, plaintiffs cannot substitute their original case with mutually destructive pleas. However, objections regarding inconsistency in pleadings are matters for trial and not grounds to reject amendment when the amendment itself is limited to consequential relief.

---

AMENDMENT — Effect on accrued rights — Test (Para 15)

Amendment should not be allowed if it takes away a vested right accrued to the opposite party or introduces an entirely new and inconsistent case. Where amendment is limited and does not prejudice such rights, it can be permitted.

---

REVISION — Article 227 — Interference — Scope (Para 16)

Where the trial Court has exercised discretion judiciously in allowing amendment and no legal infirmity is shown, interference under Article 227 is not warranted.

---

FINAL RESULT (Paras 16, 17)

Civil Revision Petition dismissed — Order allowing amendment upheld — No costs.