M/s EAGLE SECURITY & PERSONNEL SERVICES v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – BOMBAY HIGH COURT
High Court, Bombay
M.S. Sonak, Justice & Jitendra Jain, Justice
M/s EAGLE SECURITY & PERSONNEL SERVICES
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
WRIT PETITION No.1687 of 2024 dated 18.08.2025
Law : GST
Act Name : Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017
Relevant Section : Section 9, 16, 17, 49 & 54
Notification/Circular : Notification No.29 of 2018- CT dated 31.12.2028, Notification No.13 of 2017 dated 28.06.2017
Decision : In favour of revenue
RCM Supplies – Security services provided to Government Departments – Demand raised on assessee under forward charge instead of RCM – Challenge to Vires of Section 17(2) & (3) of CGST/MGST Act, 2017 and Notifications – Denial of ITC – Petition sought quashing of provisions treating supplies under RCM as exempt and denial of ITC contended ultra vires of GST Act and violative of Articles 14 & 19(1)(g) of Constitution – Under statutory scheme services taxable under RCM entail no output tax liability on service provider and such services treated as exempt under Section 17 consequently ITC not admissible – ITC is a concession/benefit conferred by statute not an absolute right subject to conditions under Sections 16, 17, 49 and Rules – Scope of Judicial Review: Courts circumspect in striking down fiscal statutes; State has wide latitude in classification in taxation; perfect uniformity or equality in tax laws not required – Relied on Amalgamated Tea Estates Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala wherein held no violation of Article 14 where different tax rates leviable to different categories of companies – Incidence of tax need not always be passed to purchaser, restriction not unreasonable under Article 19 (1)(g) of Constitution – Benefit of credit of ITC available only if there is output tax liability – Inverted Duty Structure analogy misconceived since refund u/s 54 applies only when output tax paid at lower rate than input tax whereas in RCM no output liability – Challenge to vires of Section 17(2), 17(3) and Notifications rejected by placing reliance on Chief Commissioner of CGST v. Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd. (2025) wherein held provision meets test of reasonable classification which is part of Article 14 of Constitution of India and right of ITC is conferred only by statute and unless there is statutory provision ITC cannot be enforced – Held: Petition dismissed – Challenge to Notification No.29/2018 amending Notification 13/2017 and Section 17(2) & (3) of CGS
Represented By:
Counsel for the Petitioner: Shreyas Shrivastava (through VC) a/w Saurabh R. Mashelkar
Continue Reading...
This is only a preview of the article. The complete article contains detailed analysis, examples, notifications, circulars, case laws, interpretations and practical guidance available to premium members.
This is only a preview of the article. The complete article contains detailed analysis, examples, notifications, circulars, case laws, interpretations and practical guidance available to premium members.
🔒 Premium Content
Subscribe to access complete articles, notifications, circulars, case laws, downloads, videos and premium resources.
Become Premium Member