High Court of Kerala20 August 2026

A.R. Thaha Muhammed v. Assistant State Tax Officer

For assessee

WP(C) NO. 29142 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where petitioner filed relevant GST returns for tax periods April 2019 to March 2020 prior to 30.11.2021 cut-off prescribed under Section 16(5), denial of input tax credit solely for late filing under Section 16(4) was unsustainable and petitioner was entitled for reconsideration and grant of ITC subject to fulfilment of other conditions

Provisions considered

Section 16, read with Sections 39 and 44, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Kerala 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

A.R. Thaha Muhammed v. Assistant State Tax Officer

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

A.R. Thaha Muhammed v. Assistant State Tax Officer

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