High Court of Madras12 August 2026

S. Saravanan v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

For assessee

WP NO. 29892 OF 2023

The ruling in brief

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

Provisions considered

Section 16, read with Section 73 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

S. Saravanan v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) — Madras High Court · TaxKatha

High Court of Madras12 August 2026

S. Saravanan v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

For assessee

WP NO. 29892 OF 2023

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Section 16, read with Section 73 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

Members

Read the full analysis

The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.

Free to join. No card required.

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

Case details

Forum: High Court of Madras
Bench: S. RAVEEKUMAR, J
Decided on: 12 Aug 2026
Case no.: WP NO. 29892 OF 2023
Outcome: In favour of the assessee
Tax area: GST
Topic: Input tax credit

GSTAT Lucknow28 Sept 2026

For assessee

Satyendra Singh v. L and T Technology Services Ltd

Where assessee availed ITC on supplies from a vendor whose GST registration was retrospectively cancelled and limited ITC was allowed by appellate authority based on specific invoice entries and subsequent portal amendments, since no evidence established that supplies were not received or invoices were fictitious, thus in absence of legal or factual infirmity appeal against first appellate order was to be dismissed

CGST S.16

Kerala High Court17 Sept 2026

For assessee

PBS Traders v. Assistant State Tax Officer

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

Delhi High Court17 Sept 2026

For revenue

Jain Cement Udyog v. Union of India

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

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Read the full analysis

Related rulings

Satyendra Singh v. L and T Technology Services Ltd

PBS Traders v. Assistant State Tax Officer

Jain Cement Udyog v. Union of India