Madras High Court
For assessee
High Courts
Rulings of the High Court of Madras, newest first.
12 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 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 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
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 demand arising from mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B was challenged as time barred on ground that proceedings ought to have been initiated under section 73 within stipulated time, benefit of exclusion of limitation during Covid-19 period applied and proceedings could not be held barred by limitation
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
ITC on works contracts and construction of immovable property used for renting is blocked under Section 17(5)(d); rented building being not “plant or machinery,” ITC claimed on such construction was rightly denied GST: Prior intimation to department, without statutory approval, does not preclude invocation of extended limitation; where blocked ITC was availed beyond prescribed time and without concurrence, extended period and equal penalty for suppression were rightly invoked despite subsequent reversal of credit. GST : Joint assessment proceedings for multiple tax periods justified; common show cause notice issued for multiple tax periods cannot be challenged
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
Madras High Court
Where assessee faced ex parte assessment for alleged excess ITC based on mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, had paid differential ITC pre-order and attributed non-response to a lapse by a part-time accountant, equitable grounds required that assessee be given opportunity to present submissions with supporting documents, thus, impugned assessment order was to be set aside for fresh consideration with effective hearing