High Court of Calcutta25 June 2026

A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd. v. Union of India

For assesseeRemanded

WPA NO. 22309 OF 2024

The ruling in brief

Where petitioner faced multiple demands for same period under section 73 and had filed GSTR-3B by 30.11.2021, since retrospective amendment to section 16(5) regularized ITC, demand raised by subsequent order was not sustainable and same was to be quashed, order-in-original required re-adjudication in light of retrospective benefit and verification of return dates

Provisions considered

Section 16, read with section 73, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/West Bengal 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

A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd. v. Union of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd. v. Union of India

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