Topic
Eligibility, time limits, blocked credits, mismatches and the electronic credit ledger.
11 rulings found
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
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner firm availed ITC on procurement of goods but Insolvency proceedings were initiated against supplier under IBC before deposit of collected GST, statutory condition mandated actual payment of tax by supplier and, thus, recipient could not avail ITC unless supplier had paid tax, and on supplier's default, recovery of such ITC from recipient was permissible in law. GST: Where petitioner challenged Section 16(2)(c) on grounds of practical impossibility in verifying supplier’s tax payment for ITC eligibility, constitutional validity of section 16(2)(c) was upheld as conditions to avail ITC are to be satisfied conjointly; no constitutional or legal infirmity or basis to read down provision exists based on lex non cogit ad impossibilia principle. GST: Where petitioner availed ITC on GST charged by supplier who did not deposit GST collected and insolvency proceedings under IBC was initiated, IBC did not override statutory ITC condition in Section 16(2)(c), and ITC denial was justified
Delhi High Court
Where petitioners challenged constitutional validity of section 17(5)(c) and (d) of CGST Act regarding blocked credit for works contract for construction of immovable property invoking functionality test and apprehended loss of benefits due to litigation delay, since challenge was foreclosed by Supreme Court, functionality test was to be applied case wise
AAR Uttarakhand
Where applicant paid/will be paying GST on upfront lease premium for industrial plot intended for factory construction, since bar on ITC for goods or services used for construction of immovable property applies, applicant is not eligible for claim of ITC of GST paid/payable on upfront payment of lease amount
Supreme Court
Where purchasing dealers challenged constitutional validity of section 16(2)(c) on ground that ITC could not be denied for supplier's failure to deposit tax, since ITC is a statutory concession and section 41 permits re-availment of reversed ITC upon subsequent payment of tax by supplier, section 16(2)(c) was constitutionally valid and could not be read down
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
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
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
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 manufacturer of TMT steel bars had credits blocked under Rule 86A due to evidence that four supplier premises were vacant with no infrastructure, no vehicle movements were recorded for alleged deliveries, and documentation anomalies indicated fake transactions, power to block ITC was validly exercised based on adequate material, and writ seeking unblocking was not justified
AAR West Bengal
Section 16(5), inserted by Finance Act (No. 2), 2024, only extends time-limit for availing ITC and does not create fresh right to reclaim credit reversed for supplier- reporting mismatch; hence, ITC on 2020 invoices, already reversed under AAR order, could not be re-availed