Kerala High Court
For assessee
Topic
Eligibility, time limits, blocked credits, mismatches and the electronic credit ledger.
48 rulings found
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
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner filed monthly return for March 2019 on 23.10.2019 and claimed input tax credit, since return was within cutoff of Section 16(5), denial based on Section 16(4) limitation was unsustainable, requiring reconsideration and grant of input tax credit for March 2019 if otherwise eligible
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner challenged reversal of input tax credit for delayed return filing and subsequently filed rectification application after retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) and 16(6) from 1 July 2017, with return filed within extended period and no revenue dispute on timing, rejection of appeal ignoring retrospective extension and rectification was perverse and orders were set aside
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner claimed input tax credit for March 2019 and filed return on 02.01.2020, since this was within cut-off date of 30.11.2021 prescribed by Section 16(5), denial of input tax credit on ground of limitation under Section 16(4) was unsustainable and order declining credit was quashed for reconsideration under Section 16(5) if otherwise eligible
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner filed returns claiming Input Tax Credit for June 2018 to March 2019 on dates prior to statutory cut-off of 30.11.2021, denial of ITC solely on ground of belated filing was not justified and petitioner was entitled to ITC subject to other eligibility and order declining ITC on limitation was to be quashed
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
Calcutta High Court
Where assessee proved possession of invoices, receipt of goods, and payment, denial of input tax credit solely due to supplier's default in GST deposit and non-reflection in GSTR-2A was unsustainable in absence of collusion, and department ought first to proceed against defaulting supplier, making impugned recovery from assessee without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed GST: Where notice invoking section 74 was issued for raising demand in respect of alleged ineligible or excess ITC for 2018-19 solely on bare assertions of fraud or wilful misstatement without particulars, and reply with supporting documents was not addressed, such notice was ex facie time-barred under section 73(10), recourse to extended limitation was without jurisdiction and proceedings were liable to be quashed
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
Rajasthan High Court
Where petition challenged respondents' blocking of ITC credited in electronic credit ledger for noncompliance with Rule 86A, alleging absence of recorded reasons and precondition satisfaction, and ledger subsequently became unblocked by operation of law during proceedings, since mandatory requirements of Rule 86A were not complied and substantive relief was spent, petition was disposed with a caution of future liability for noncompliance
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner filed relevant GST returns for tax periods April 2019 to March 2020 prior to 30.11.2021 cut-off prescribed under Section 16(5), denial of input tax credit solely for late filing under Section 16(4) was unsustainable and petitioner was entitled for reconsideration and grant of ITC subject to fulfilment of other conditions
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Where construction company’s electronic credit ledger was blocked under Rule 86A by Additional Commissioner without recorded reasons or prior hearing, such action, though Rule 86A does not specify hearing, violated principles of natural justice due to serious civil consequences, and order was set aside as arbitrary and passed in breach of audi alteram partem
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
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioner, after transitioning valid CENVAT credit into Electronic Credit Ledger, discharged appeal pre-deposit by debiting this credit, such payment constituted valid compliance as there was no statutory mandate restricting mode to cash, and CBIC administrative instruction could not override statutory provisions or vested credit rights, thus Tribunal’s rejection of such pre-deposit ground was unsustainable and same was to be quashed
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioner filed GST return for 2018-19 on 23.10.2019 and availed ITC, denial of ITC by tax authority was unsustainable since section 16(5) allowed ITC for returns filed up to 30.11.2021, making benefit of ITC for 2018-19 period available to petitioner, thus, order denying ITC was to be set aside
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner, a registered person, claimed input tax credit for February and March 2020 and furnished returns within statutory cut-off under Section 16(5), denial of ITC solely citing limitation under Section 16(4) was unsustainable and authorities were directed to reconsider and grant ITC if otherwise eligible
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where registered dealer availed input tax credit for FY 2018-19 through GSTR- 3B on 20.12.2019, and initial rejection was due to deadline of 20.10.2019, subsequent statutory relaxation after introduction of section 16(5) extended window to 30.11.2021, making dealer's availment timely and order for reversal unsustainable
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner was denied ITC due to delayed return filing and disallowance orders were passed before retrospective insertion of section 16(5), since new provision creates a non obstante retrospective relaxation against limitation under section 16(4), statutory right to claim ITC could not be defeated by circular or notification and petitioner was entitled to benefit of extended period if otherwise eligible
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner claimed input tax credit for February and March 2019 and filed returns on 12.11.2019, since returns were submitted within cut-off prescribed by Section 16(5) which has a non-obstante clause overriding Section 16(4), limitation under Section 16(4) was inapplicable and petitioner was eligible for ITC subject to other entitlement
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Where retrospective amendment to Section 17(5)(d) was challenged by filing belated appeal, though Appellate Authority lacked power to condone delay beyond statutory limit, High Court set aside dismissal of appeal as time-barred and remanded matter for fresh decision on merits