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>Gujarat HC allows petition against input tax credit denial, finds order illegal under Section 16(4) CGST Act</h1> <h3>Shiv Construction Company (Axaykumar Pravinbhai Desai, Partner) Versus The Additional Commissioner (Appeals)</h3> Gujarat HC allowed petition challenging input tax credit denial order. Court found the order illegal and without jurisdiction under CGST Act provisions. ... Input tax credit - order is ex-facie illegal and without jurisdiction under the provisions of the CGST Act - violation of Section 16 (4) of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Considering the amendment in CGST Act by insertion of Section 16 (5) of the Act, the alleged default committed by the petitioners of not complying with Section 16 (4) of the Act would now no longer exists subject to verification of the facts by the Adjudicating Authority. In view of such subsequent development which has taken place after passing the impugned order by the respondent authority, the matter is required to be remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh denovo order considering the provisions of Section 16 (5) which has come into operation w.e.f. 01.07.2017. Petition allowed by way of remand. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the order dated 12.08.2024, issued by the Respondent, is ex-facie illegal and without jurisdiction under the provisions of the CGST ActRs.Whether the petitioner is entitled to avail input tax credit (ITC) for the period in question, considering the amendments made to Section 16 of the CGST ActRs.Should the matter be remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration in light of the recent amendment to the CGST ActRs.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Legality and Jurisdiction of the Respondent's OrderRelevant legal framework and precedents: The petitioner challenged the legality of the order dated 12.08.2024, issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, claiming it was without jurisdiction.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court considered the petitioner's claim that the order was illegal due to the non-compliance with Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act.Key evidence and findings: The petitioner argued that the order was based on a misinterpretation of the GST Act provisions.Application of law to facts: The court examined whether the Respondent's order adhered to the statutory requirements under the CGST Act.Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondent did not effectively counter the petitioner's claim, especially in light of the subsequent amendment to the CGST Act.Conclusions: The court found that the order was issued without considering the recent amendment, rendering it potentially without jurisdiction.Issue 2: Entitlement to Input Tax CreditRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act initially restricted ITC claims beyond a certain date, but the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, introduced sub-section (5), which allowed ITC claims up to 30th November 2021 for specific financial years.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court acknowledged the amendment and its implications on the petitioner's entitlement to ITC.Key evidence and findings: The petitioner had filed the necessary returns before the deadline specified in the amended Section 16 (5).Application of law to facts: The court applied the amended provisions to the petitioner's case, finding that the petitioner was entitled to claim ITC.Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondent's inability to refute the petitioner's claim, given the amendment, was noted by the court.Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to ITC under the amended Section 16 (5).Issue 3: Remand for ReconsiderationRelevant legal framework and precedents: The court considered whether the case should be remanded for a fresh decision in light of the new legal provisions.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court determined that the amendment warranted a reconsideration of the petitioner's case by the Adjudicating Authority.Key evidence and findings: The amendment to Section 16 (5) was a significant development affecting the petitioner's case.Application of law to facts: The court found that the facts needed verification under the new legal framework.Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondent did not oppose the remand in light of the amendment.Conclusions: The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'Considering the above amendment in CGST Act by insertion of Section 16 (5) of the Act, the alleged default committed by the petitioners of not complying with Section 16 (4) of the Act would now no longer exist subject to verification of the facts by the Adjudicating Authority.'Core principles established: The amendment to Section 16 of the CGST Act allows for a broader timeframe for claiming ITC, which must be considered in ongoing and future assessments.Final determinations on each issue: The court quashed the orders dated 21.11.2023 and 12.08.2024 and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision, considering the new legal provisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
