Kerala High Court
For assessee
Topic
Eligibility, time limits, blocked credits, mismatches and the electronic credit ledger.
49 rulings found
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner, a registered taxpayer, filed returns for April 2018 to March 2019 within the extended cut-off dates prescribed under statutory extension by Section 168A of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, benefit of input tax credit cannot be denied by invoking Section 16(4) limitation, as all returns were within the prescribed extended period
Gauhati High Court
Where bona fide purchaser paid GST to registered seller and held valid tax invoice, denial of input tax credit solely due to seller’s failure to file returns or pay tax was not lawful, remedy lay against defaulting seller and not purchaser, thus treating ITC as excess and raising rectification demand was set aside
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner filed return for March 2020 on 17.11.2020 and challenged denial of input tax credit on ground of limitation, since Section 16(5) allowed entitlement where return was submitted before 30.11.2021, rejection of input tax credit as time-barred under Section 16(4) was unsustainable and reconsideration was warranted if otherwise eligible
Kerala High Court
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
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
Patna High Court
Where ITC was denied as time-barred but assessee claimed benefit of retrospective amendments and Circular No. 237/31/2024-GST, appropriate remedy was to seek rectification before competent authority under special procedure prescribed in paragraph 3.5 of said Circular
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner’s input tax credit for April 2018 to March 2019 was denied due to belated filing of returns under section 16(4), but returns for relevant months were actually filed within the relaxation cut-off period under section 16(5)., denial based on section 16(4) was not justified and assessee was entitled to ITC
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner filed returns for November 2018 to March 2019 before 30.11.2021 and claimed ITC for FY 2018-19, since statutory cut-off stood satisfied, refusal of ITC was not sustainable and same required reconsideration under Section 16(5) if otherwise eligible
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner claimed ITC for March 2020 and furnished return on 04.01.2021, denial of ITC solely on ground of not filing return before cut-off under section 64 was unsustainable as return was within statutory period under section 16(5) and section 65, thus order declining ITC was to be quashed and reconsideration directed if petitioner otherwise eligible
Calcutta High Court
Statutory amendment to Section 16(5) retrospectively extended time;returns filed for 2018-19 before 30 November 2021 was valid and taxpayer could not be denied ITC on ground of delayed return filing GST: Where alleged short payment based on GSTR-1/GSTR-3B mismatch is claimed to have been discharged through DRC-03 and issue requires factual verification, demand cannot be sustained without such verification and matter is liable to be remanded to proper officer for fresh consideration. GST: Where denial of ITC on account of GSTR-2A/GSTR-9 mismatch involves disputed facts, including supplier's insolvency and alleged non-filing of returns, matter requires fresh examination by proper officer and cannot be decided without proper factual verification. GST: Where principal demand is set aside, consequential enhanced penalty cannot survive and issue of penalty is liable to be remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with surviving tax demand
Telangana High Court
Where petitioner challenged denial of ITC and garnishee notices via writs citing belated GSTR filings, non- hearing, and retrospective ITC amendment, remedy lay in filing statutory appeals with pre-deposit and delay- condonation plea, appellate authority was to consider delay and decide on merits, all legal and factual grounds reserved for appellate adjudication
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner faced multiple demands for same period under section 73 and had filed GSTR-3B by 30.11.2021, since retrospective amendment to section 16(5) regularized ITC, demand raised by subsequent order was not sustainable and same was to be quashed, order-in-original required re-adjudication in light of retrospective benefit and verification of return dates
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
Kerala High Court
Where taxpayer claimed input tax credit for specific months and filed returns within special cut-off period provided under non-obstante credit provision, denial of credit on ground of general time-limit was invalid since special provision overrode general timeline and entitlement must be reconsidered based only on fulfilment of non-obstante credit criteria if otherwise eligible
Telangana High Court
Where petitioner challenged validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Order-in-Original due to non-issuance of show cause notice which fact was discovered only after garnishee recovery proceedings were initiated, assessee should file statutory appeal
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
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner with multiple state registrations received foreign IT services invoiced to one state but consideration and tax under reverse charge were discharged by another unit which issued self-invoice as prescribed, denial of input tax credit on grounds of invoice address was unsustainable since statutory conditions for ITC were satisfied and self-invoice constituted valid tax-paying document. GST: Where petitioner cross-charged service value and corresponding input tax credit from head office to other states without ISD registration for July 2017 to March 2019, since unamended law did not mandate ISD registration and distribution route was not compulsory as per statutory materials, such cross-charge was not illegal and penalty demand was unsustainable