Topic
Eligibility, time limits, blocked credits, mismatches and the electronic credit ledger.
68 rulings
GSTAT Lucknow
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
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
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
GSTAT Bengaluru
Where assessee claimed ITC on 2017-18 invoices in 2018-19 which matched legal timeline, and denial was based only on GSTR-2A non-reflection without verifying supplier payment or invoices, such denial was unsustainable because GSTR-2A was merely facilitative and demand could not be sustained without proper invoice-wise verification as per statutory circular GST: Where assessee was proceeded for excess ITC due to GSTR-3B versus GSTR- 2A mismatch and Order-in-Original was passed without granting personal hearing as required when adverse decision was contemplated, absence of such hearing itself vitiated order, rendering it unsustainable in law and necessitating its setting aside GST: Where assessee faced demand for excess ITC based on GSTR-3B and GSTR- 2A mismatch, and proceedings were initiated directly based on audit reference with proper demand notices but without scrutiny notice in ASMT-10, absence of ASMT-10 notice did not invalidate proceedings as demand initiation was independent of return scrutiny, thus, issue was answered against assessee
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
GSTAT Lucknow
Where assessee's ITC allocation between IGST, CGST and SGST showed head- wise mismatch but total eligible ITC in electronic credit ledger equaled claimed ITC, such mismatch did not constitute excess ITC and principal demand, interest and penalty could not be sustained in absence of actual excess availment, as clarified by CBIC and supported by Rule 88B
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
GSTAT Kolkata
Refund of accumulated ITC claimed on export of goods could not be denied merely on basis of absence of toll plaza movements where goods were supplied under Bill To Ship To model and E way Bills, bilty copies, shipping bills, EGM details, transporter's certificate and bank statements established transportation and export; toll plaza receipts were not mandatory documents
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
Supreme Court
Review petition dismissed against dismissal of SLP that telecommunication towers does not qualify test of permanency as they are not ‘attached to earth’, they can be dismantled and moved and are never erected with an intent of conferring permanency and their placement on concrete bases was only to enable those towers to overcome vagaries of nature, they can be considered as moveable property eligible for ITC
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
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