High Court of Kerala
Ezhupunna South Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. State Tax Officer
For assessee
WP(C) NO. 23682 OF 2026
High Court of Kerala
WP(C) NO. 23682 OF 2026
Where petitioner filed returns for October 2019 to March 2020 before 30.11.2021 and was denied input tax credit solely on ground of breach of Section 16(4), such denial was unsustainable as Section 16(5) permitted entitlement when returns were timely filed, thus petitioner was entitled to input tax credit for those months
Section 16, read with section 73 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.
Members
The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.
Free to join. No card required.
Already a member? Sign in
GSTAT Lucknow
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
Kerala High Court
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 Court
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