Case Details: Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India-(2025) 26 Centax 27 (Raj.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Avneesh Jhingan & Uma Shanker Vyas, JJ.
- Shri Hemant Kothari for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Rajendra Prasad, Adv., General, Ms Harshita Thakral, Ms Dhriti Laddha, Tanay Goyal, Kinshuk Jain & Devesh Yadav for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a registered assessee under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, challenged an order passed by the Appellate Authority, State Tax, Jaipur, regarding the classification of supplies made during the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner contended that these supplies were inter-state transactions, thereby falling under the ambit of the IGST. However, the tax authorities classified these transactions as intra-state supplies and consequently levied CGST and SGST. Aggrieved by this classification, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court, also challenging the vires of Section 19(1) of the IGST Act, 2017, and Section 77(1) of the CGST Act, 2017/Rajasthan GST, 2017. The petitioner further argued that he had already deposited IGST on these transactions and should not be required to make additional tax payments under CGST and SGST.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble High Court held that before adjudicating upon the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions, a factual determination regarding the nature of supplies was necessary. Accordingly, the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy before the GST Tribunal. The Court clarified that no further recovery proceedings should be undertaken against the petitioner if the condition of pre-deposit for filing the appeal was met. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to deposit the refunded IGST amount received on the disputed transactions. Since the GST Tribunal had not yet been constituted, the petitioner was granted the liberty to file an appeal within three months from the date of its formation. The Court also explicitly kept open the issue of the vires challenge, ensuring that the petitioner retained the right to contest the constitutionality of the provisions after the factual assessment by the Tribunal.
