GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata5 August 2026

Commissioner CGST & CX v. Power Tech Global (P.) Ltd

APPEAL NOS. APL 62, 74 AND 75 (KLK) OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Input tax credit in respect of MEIS duty scrips could not be excluded from aggregate value of exempt supplies for period prior to Notification No 14 of 2022 as amendment to Rule 43 excluding value of duty credit scrips was intended to operate prospectively and ITC being concessional in nature could not be claimed retrospectively as vested right

Where assessee had disclosed availment of ITC on outward supply of MEIS duty credit scrips in GSTR-3B and department was aware of such transactions, there was no concealment of facts or intention to evade tax, and therefore fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression could not be alleged merely because assessee claimed retrospective benefit of amendment to Rule 43, making invocation of section 74(1) unsustainable and requiring fresh determination of tax liability

Provisions considered

Section 17, read with section 164 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 74 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

Calcutta High Court10 Sept 2026

For assessee

Sumant Kumar Agarwal v. Commissioner of CGST & CX

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

Madras High Court28 Aug 2026

For assessee

Esnp Property Builder and Developers (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer (ST)

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 Court27 Aug 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Cart Infralog Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner

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

Related rulings

Calcutta High Court10 Sept 2026

For assessee

Commissioner CGST & CX v. Power Tech Global (P.) Ltd

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Commissioner CGST & CX v. Power Tech Global (P.) Ltd

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Read the full analysis

Sumant Kumar Agarwal v. Commissioner of CGST & CX

Esnp Property Builder and Developers (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer (ST)

Cart Infralog Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner