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>Tax Authority Must Reconsider Input Tax Credit Claim, Provide Fair Hearing Within 90 Days Under Section 16(5)</h1> <h3>FAHAD PAREED Versus THE STATE TAX OFFICER ERNAKULAM, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES & CUSTOMS NEW DELHI, THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM</h3> HC ruled in petitioner's favor, setting aside tax credit denial order. Court directed tax authority to reconsider input tax credit claim under Section ... Denial of benefit of input tax credit on account of the provisions contained in Sub Section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts, for the financial year 2018-19 - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the assertion of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that on account of notification of Sub-Section (5) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts, the petitioner will be entitled to input tax credit, which has been denied to the petitioner by Ext.P1 order, the writ petition will stand disposed of, setting aside Ext.P1 to the extent that it denied input tax credit to the petitioner on account of the provisions of Sub Section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts and directing the competent authority to pass fresh orders, after taking note of the provisions contained in Section 16(5) of the CGST/SGST Acts and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In the case before the Kerala High Court, presided by Justice Gopinath P., the petitioner challenged the denial of input tax credit for the financial year 2018-19, as per Ext.P1 order dated 22.02.2024. The denial was based on Sub Section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts. The petitioner argued that with the introduction of Sub-Section (5) of Section 16, they should now qualify for the input tax credit previously denied. The court, after hearing both parties, concluded that the writ petition should be disposed of by setting aside Ext.P1 to the extent that it denied input tax credit. The court directed the competent authority to issue fresh orders considering the provisions of Section 16(5) and to provide the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing within three months from receiving the judgment's certified copy.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
