#gst itc

[gstindiaguide-blog1]

Demand under Section 73 quashed and matter remanded as adjudicating authority failed to give reasons for rejecting ITC despite the assessee producing invoices and payment proofs; mere retrospective cancellation of supplier’s registration cannot, by itself, justify denial of ITC without establishing non-payment of tax by supplier or non-receipt of goods.

M/s APN Sales and Marketing v. Union of India & Anr. Delhi High Court | W.P.(C) 9536/2024 | Decision dated 15.07.2024Category: Input Tax Credit (ITC) – Alleged excess ITC on supplies from a supplier whose registration was retrospectively cancelledRelevant Provisions: Sections 16(2)(b), 16(2)(c), 73, 168A CGST Act; corresponding DGST Act provisions Facts (Paras 3–8, 10–11) The petitioner, a…

Demand under Section 73 quashed and matter remanded as adjudicating authority failed to give reasons for rejecting ITC despite the assessee producing invoices and payment proofs; mere retrospective cancellation of supplier’s registration cannot, by itself, justify denial of ITC without establishing non-payment of tax by supplier or non-receipt of goods.

[gstindiaguide-blog1]

GST ITC blocking quashed as action under Rule 86A lacked reasons and pre-decisional hearing

Case Title: M/s S.A. Industries v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Hassan Central Range & Anr.Court: High Court of Karnataka, BengaluruPetition No.: Writ Petition No. 5820 of 2025 (T-RES)Category: Input Tax Credit (ITC) – Rule 86A Blocking of Electronic Credit LedgerDate of Judgment: 09 April 2025Relevant Provisions: Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017; Sections 16 & 74 of the CGST Act, 2017;…

GST ITC blocking quashed as action under Rule 86A lacked reasons and pre-decisional hearing

[gstindiaguide-blog1]

ITC denial remanded as authorities failed to verify supplier compliance and consider documentary evidence of actual movement of goods

Case Title: Shyamalmay Paul v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Siliguri Charge & Ors.Court: Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri)Petition Number: WPA 708 of 2025Category: Input Tax Credit (ITC – Ineligible Claim / Non-existent Supplier)Date of Judgment: 08 April 2025Relevant Sections: Sections 16, 50, 73(9) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017; Rule 36 of the CGST Rules, 2017 Facts (Paras…

ITC denial remanded as authorities failed to verify supplier compliance and consider documentary evidence of actual movement of goods

[gstindiaguide-blog1]

Writ petition disposed allowing rectification of past ITC denials in view of retrospective extension under Section 16(4) CGST Act

Case Title: M/s North Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & OthersCourt: High Court of Punjab and Haryana, ChandigarhPetition No.: CWP-15400-2024 (O&M)Date of Judgment: 10.12.2024Category: Input Tax Credit – Retrospective Amendment and Rectification under Section 148Relevant Sections: Sections 16(4), 16(5), 16(6), 73, 74, 107, 108 and 148 of the CGST Act, 2017; Notification No.…

Writ petition disposed allowing rectification of past ITC denials in view of retrospective extension under Section 16(4) CGST Act

[gstindiaguide-blog1]

GST ITC reversal quashed as Court held that the retrospective amendment to Section 16(5) entitled taxpayers to claim credit for FY 2017–18 to 2020–21 up to 30.11.2021

Case Reference:Nilgiris Silverline Builders Private Limited v. Deputy State Tax Officer – 2, Gudalur Assessment Circle, The NilgirisHigh Court of Judicature at Madras | W.P. No. 4718 of 2025 | Judgment dated 12.02.2025Category: Input Tax Credit (ITC) – Limitation under Section 16(4) and retrospective relief under Section 16(5)Relevant Provisions: Sections 16(4), 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017;…

GST ITC reversal quashed as Court held that the retrospective amendment to Section 16(5) entitled taxpayers to claim credit for FY 2017–18 to 2020–21 up to 30.11.2021

[gstindiaguide-blog1]

GST demand quashed as allegation of “fictitious supplier” against Hindustan Unilever was held to be a clear non-application of mind

Case Details Case Title: TVL. Sri Balaji Trading Company v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)Court: Madras High CourtPetition No.: W.P. No. 21448 of 2025 with WMP Nos. 24224 & 24225 of 2025Date of Judgement: 18.06.2025Category of Dispute: Input Tax Credit (ITC) denial based on alleged fictitious supplierRelevant Sections: Sections 16 & 74 of the CGST Act, 2017; Rule 86A of the CGST Rules,…

GST demand quashed as allegation of “fictitious supplier” against Hindustan Unilever was held to be a clear non-application of mind

[gstindiaguide-blog1]

ITC denial quashed as Madras High Court held retrospective amendment to Section 16(5) overrides limitation under Section 16(4)

Case: M/s. Rajkumar Josphine v. Superintendent of GST & Central Excise Court: Madras High CourtPetition No.: W.P. No. 22639 of 2025 (with W.M.P. No. 25489 of 2025)Date of Judgment: 09.07.2025Category: Input Tax Credit (ITC) – Limitation under Section 16(4)Relevant Sections: Section 16(4), Section 16(5), Section 39 of CGST Act, 2017 Facts (Paras 1–2) The petitioner, a registered dealer under GST,…

ITC denial quashed as Madras High Court held retrospective amendment to Section 16(5) overrides limitation under Section 16(4)

[gstindiaguide-blog1]

Section 16(4) and 16(2)(c) challenges partly withdrawn, show cause notices quashed in view of Section 16(5) amendment

Case Summary Case Title: R.K. Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner of Central TaxesCourt: High Court of Judicature at MadrasPetition Nos.: W.P.Nos.3457 of 2022 etc. batchDate of Judgment: 02.07.2025Category: Input Tax Credit (ITC) – Challenge to Section 16(4) and 16(2)(c), validity of SCNs/assessment ordersRelevant Sections: Section 16(2)(c), Section 16(4), Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017;…

Section 16(4) and 16(2)(c) challenges partly withdrawn, show cause notices quashed in view of Section 16(5) amendment