High Court of Madras
Venus Infra Projects v. Assistant Commissioner of ST
For revenue
W.P. NO. 21371 OF 2026
High Court of Madras
W.P. NO. 21371 OF 2026
Where petitioner’s registration was cancelled and revived later, claim for ITC on pending returns was denied as entitlement under section 16(6) is conditional upon ITC not being barred by section 16(4) on date of cancellation, and since petitioner was time-barred under section 16(4) at cancellation, subsequent claim was not permissible
Section 16, read with sections 29, 30 and 39, 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.
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