TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Andhra Pradesh HC upholds Section 16(4) time limits for claiming Input Tax Credit under GST Act</h1> <h3>Thirumalakonda Plywoods, Versus The Assistant Commissioner – State Tax, Anantapur Circle – 1,</h3> Thirumalakonda Plywoods, Versus The Assistant Commissioner – State Tax, Anantapur Circle – 1, - 2023 (76) G.S.T.L. 172 (A. P.) , [2023] 116 G S.T.R. 345 ... Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Section 16(4) of APGST Act and CGST Act, 2017.2. Prevalence of Section 16(2) over Section 16(4) of APGST/CGST Act, 2017.3. Effect of late fee payment on the validity of ITC claims.4. Validity of summary order issued without proper notice and opportunity for hearing.Summary:Issue 1: Constitutionality of Section 16(4) of APGST Act and CGST Act, 2017The petitioner argued that Section 16(4) of the APGST Act and CGST Act, 2017, which imposes a time limit for claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC), violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The court found that ITC is a concession, not a statutory or constitutional right, and imposing conditions, including time limits, does not violate constitutional provisions. The court cited several precedents, including Jayam and Co. v. Assistant Commissioner and ALD Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, to support the view that ITC is a benefit subject to legislative conditions.Issue 2: Prevalence of Section 16(2) over Section 16(4) of APGST/CGST Act, 2017The petitioner contended that Section 16(2), which starts with a non obstante clause, should override Section 16(4). The court clarified that Section 16(2) is a restricting provision that sets eligibility criteria for ITC and does not enable ITC claims. Section 16(4) imposes a time limit for claiming ITC, and both provisions operate independently without contradiction. The court held that the non obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override the time limit in Section 16(4).Issue 3: Effect of late fee payment on the validity of ITC claimsThe petitioner argued that the acceptance of Form GSTR-3B returns with a late fee should exonerate the delay in claiming ITC. The court rejected this argument, stating that the conditions in Sections 16(2) and 16(4) are mutually different and operate independently. The payment of a late fee is for admitting the returns for verification of taxable turnover, not for considering ITC claims.Issue 4: Validity of summary order issued without proper notice and opportunity for hearingThe petitioner claimed that the summary order was issued without proper notice and sufficient opportunity for hearing. The court found that the objections raised by the petitioner were discussed and rejected in the impugned assessment order. The court concluded that the proper procedure was followed, and the contentions lacked merit.Conclusion:1. The time limit for claiming ITC under Section 16(4) of APGST/CGST Act, 2017, is constitutional and does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300-A of the Constitution of India.2. Section 16(2) does not override Section 16(4); both provisions operate independently.3. Acceptance of Form GSTR-3B returns with a late fee does not validate ITC claims made beyond the period specified in Section 16(4).4. The summary order issued by the 1st respondent followed proper procedure, and the petitioner's contentions were without merit.The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
