High Court of Madras22 June 2026

24 HRS Productions v. Superintendent of GST and Central Excise

For assesseeRemanded

WP NO. 11123 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where petitioner’s belated input tax credit was disallowed solely for non-filing of a reply to SCN, subsequent statutory amendment enabled condonation of ITC delay with retrospective effect, requiring reconsideration of demand, thus petitioner could now establish receipt of supplies and eligibility, and delay by itself did not bar entitlement if compliance conditions were met

Provisions considered

CGST S.16

Section 16 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

GSTAT Lucknow28 Sept 2026

For assessee

Satyendra Singh v. L and T Technology Services Ltd

Where assessee availed ITC on supplies from a vendor whose GST registration was retrospectively cancelled and limited ITC was allowed by appellate authority based on specific invoice entries and subsequent portal amendments, since no evidence established that supplies were not received or invoices were fictitious, thus in absence of legal or factual infirmity appeal against first appellate order was to be dismissed

CGST S.16

Kerala High Court17 Sept 2026

For assessee

PBS Traders v. Assistant State Tax Officer

Where petitioner filed returns for months September 2018 to March 2019 within extended deadline permitted by Section 16(5), denial of Input Tax Credit solely on ground of limitation under Section 16(4) was unsustainable, and petitioner remained entitled to ITC subject to fulfilling other conditions, as interest liability for belated payment was not contested in proceedings

Delhi High Court17 Sept 2026

For revenue

Jain Cement Udyog v. Union of India

Where assessee availed ITC on purchases from suppliers whose registrations were cancelled prior to invoice dates and ITC was denied due to suppliers’ non- payment of tax, challenge to Section 16(2)(c) as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) failed, since Supreme Court upheld validity of provision which only requires recipient to establish deposit of tax by supplier; petitioner relegated to appellate remedy

24 HRS Productions v. Superintendent of GST and Central Excise

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

24 HRS Productions v. Superintendent of GST and Central Excise

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Satyendra Singh v. L and T Technology Services Ltd

PBS Traders v. Assistant State Tax Officer

Jain Cement Udyog v. Union of India

Read the full analysis