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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>ITC claims barred under Section 16(4) but within Section 16(5) period should be allowed, assessment order quashed</h1> <h3>M/s. Aimz Spectrum Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Nungambakkam Division, Chennai North Commissionerate</h3> HC quashed assessment order reversing ITC claim. Court held that ITC claims barred under Section 16(4) of CGST Act 2017 but falling within Section 16(5) ... Challenge to assessment order - reversal of ITC claim - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in the present Writ Petition, has been squarely covered by the common order of this Court, in SRI GANAPATHI PANDI INDUSTRIES, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (STATE TAX) (FAC) TONDIARPET ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, CHENNAI [2024 (10) TMI 1631 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], wherein, this Court has categorically held that 'The orders impugned in all Writ Petitions are quashed insofar as it relates to the claim made by the petitioners for ITC which is barred by limitation in terms of Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act, 2017 but, within the period prescribed in terms of Section 16 (5) of the said Act'. The order impugned in all Writ Petition is quashed insofar as it relates to the claim made by the petitioner for ITC which is barred by limitation in terms of Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act, 2017 but, within the period prescribed in terms of Section 16 (5) of the said Act - petition allowed. The High Court of Madras considered a Writ petition filed by a taxpayer challenging the orders passed by the tax department reversing their Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act)/ Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The issue revolved around the reversal of ITC and the direction to pay tax/penalty/interest. The Court noted that the issue had been addressed in a previous common order of the Court, where it was held that the petitioners, who faced difficulties in filing returns due to various reasons, were entitled to avail ITC within the extended deadline granted by the GST Council.The Court referred to the amendments made to Section 16 of the CGST Act, particularly the insertion of sub-section (5), allowing registered persons to avail ITC for certain financial years until November 30, 2021. Considering these developments, the Court concluded that the impugned orders reversing ITC claims were no longer sustainable and should be quashed. The Court directed the tax department to release frozen bank accounts of the petitioners, refrain from initiating proceedings based on limitation issues, and refund any tax amounts collected based on the impugned orders.Furthermore, the Court granted liberty to the tax department to proceed against the petitioners for other issues such as discrepancies in ITC claims. The Writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed.In summary, the Court held that the petitioners were entitled to avail ITC within the extended deadline provided by the GST Council, and the impugned orders reversing ITC claims were quashed. The tax department was directed to take necessary steps to release frozen bank accounts and refund any collected tax amounts. The Court granted liberty to the tax department to proceed on other issues and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petitions.