Input tax credit denial requires fresh review where prior directions and circulars call for factual comparability and document-based reconsideration.

Input tax credit claims must be examined for factual comparability with the directions in M. Trade Links, and where the claim falls within that framework the authority should consider extending the same relief. Denial of input tax credit under Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Acts was required to be reconsidered in light of the circulars referred to in that judgment, with fresh orders to be passed after giving the taxpayer an opportunity to produce relevant documents. The earlier order was set aside only to that limited extent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the benefit of the directions issued in M. Trade Links extended to his claim for input tax credit; (ii) whether the denial of input tax credit under Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Acts required fresh consideration in light of the circulars referred to in that judgment.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the benefit of the directions issued in M. Trade Links extended to his claim for input tax credit.

Analysis: The petitioner sought parity with the directions already issued in M. Trade Links and requested that the same approach be applied if the factual situation was similar. The relief sought was limited to extension of those directions on a factual comparison.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to consideration for extension of the M. Trade Links directions if the factual situation was similar.

Issue (ii): Whether the denial of input tax credit under Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Acts required fresh consideration in light of the circulars referred to in that judgment.

Analysis: The denial of credit under both provisions was directed to be re-examined by the competent authority in terms of the circulars referred to in paragraph 101 of M. Trade Links. The earlier order was set aside only to the extent it had denied credit under those provisions, and fresh orders were directed after giving the petitioner an opportunity to produce the relevant documents.

Conclusion: The denial of credit under Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4) required fresh consideration, and the earlier order stood set aside to that limited extent.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for reconsideration of the input tax credit claim and limited setting aside of the impugned order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a claim for input tax credit is covered by prior directions and supporting circulars, the authority must consider whether the factual situation is comparable and decide the claim afresh on the basis of the relevant documents.

---