Madras High Court
For assessee
High Courts
Rulings of the High Court of Madras, newest first.
10 rulings found
Madras High Court
Where petitioner was denied input tax credit solely due to filing returns beyond original statutory time under section 16(4), but subsequent statutory amendment under section 16(5) fixed new timeline linked to return due date, denial of ITC based on prior bar was not sustainable and disallowance was set aside to that extent
Madras High Court
Where petitioner was denied ITC on inputs used for construction of property intended for lease or license on grounds of blocked credit for immovable property, and Chief Commissioner of Central GST v. Safari Retreats (P.) Ltd. [2024] 167 where construction is for own use or as builder's business premises, orders made without considering said principle required fresh evaluation and same were to be set aside GST: Where revenue recovered amounts from electronic cash and credit ledgers without issuing pre-recovery intimation in FORM GST DRC-01D and without allowing statutory 7 days for payment, such recovery violated Rule 142B and statutory recovery scheme, especially as assessment orders had been set aside, entitling petitioner to restoration of all such debited amounts
Madras High Court
Where registered trader's input tax credit in electronic credit ledger was blocked for over two years despite express rule limiting restriction period to one year, such continued blockage was invalid as the rule mandated unblocking after one year, and internal communication could not lawfully justify extension of restriction beyond statutory limit
Madras High Court
Where petitioner filed March 2019 return on 30.10.2019 and was denied ITC due to limitation, retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) by Act 15 of 2024, along with Notification 17/2024-CT and Circular 237/31/2024, extended ITC time limit for FYs 2017-18 to 2020-21 up to 30.11.2021, rendering limitation-based disallowance unsustainable
Madras High Court
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
Madras High Court
Where ITC was denied solely because supplier’s GST registration was retrospectively cancelled though supplier was registered when supplies occurred and most transactions predated cancellation order, rejection of ITC on this sole ground without examining genuineness of supplies was unsustainable and matter required reconsideration with reasonable opportunity to petitioner
Madras High Court
Where petitioner claimed input tax credit but filed returns belatedly and sole reason for denial was delayed filing, since statutory amendment extended time limit and petitioner filed within such extended period, rejection based solely on delay was not tenable and impugned order of denial was unsustainable
Madras High Court
Where petitioner availed input tax credit on invoices not reflected in GSTR-2A due to technical glitches acknowledged by authorities, since statutory conditions for credit were otherwise met, denial of credit was not justified; as entitlement is established under Circular 183/15/2022-GST, no interest or penalty was payable
Madras High Court
Where rejection of ITC was based on limitation period before insertion of section 16(5) which provided statutory relaxation on time limit for returns and rectification, subsequent change in law meant old basis of rejection no longer applied, so ITC denial based on pre-amendment position could not be sustained and impugned order was set aside
Madras High Court
Where petitioner purchased goods under invoices containing vehicle numbers from a registered supplier who filed returns and paid tax, denial of input tax credit solely due to absence of lorry receipts and weighment slips without enquiry into genuineness of supply was unsustainable, thus order confirming denial on that basis was set aside and required reconsideration