GST Assessment Order Invalidated: Taxpayer Wins ITC Claim Under Section 16(5) Despite Delayed Return Filing

The HC examined challenges to a GST assessment order, focusing on limitation period, ITC entitlement, and legislative amendments. The court found the assessment order invalid due to Section 16(5) of the GST Act, which allows ITC claims for FY 2017-18 to 2020-21 if returns were filed by 30.11.2021. The order was set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh assessment, granting the petitioner ITC despite delayed filing.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court include:

• Whether the order of assessment under Section 73 of the GST Act, issued beyond the three-year limitation period, is valid and sustainable.
• Whether the extensions of limitation granted by government orders comply with the requirements of Section 168-A of the GST Act and whether such extensions are permissible absent a force majeure condition.
• Whether the impugned order is invalid for lack of signature or Document Identification Number (DIN).
• Whether the petitioner is entitled to Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 16(2) of the GST Act despite delayed filing of returns.
• The impact of the legislative amendment by insertion of Section 16(5) of the GST Act, introduced by the Finance Act, 2024, on the petitioner's entitlement to ITC for the relevant financial years.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Limitation Period for Assessment under Section 73 of the GST Act

The petitioner challenged the order dated 30.04.2024 on the ground that it was passed beyond the three-year limitation period prescribed under the GST Act for the financial year 2018-2019. The petitioner contended that the order was barred by limitation and therefore void.

The Court examined the limitation framework under the GST Act, which restricts issuance of assessment orders to within three years from the due date of filing the relevant return. The petitioner argued that any extension granted by government circulars or orders was impermissible unless compliant with Section 168-A, which allows extension only under force majeure circumstances.

The Court noted the petitioner's contention that the government orders extending limitation did not specify any force majeure condition, rendering such extensions invalid. This raised the question of whether the limitation period was effectively extended and, if not, whether the order was time-barred.

The Court found that the petitioner's argument on limitation was relevant but required further consideration in light of the subsequent legislative amendment discussed below.

Validity of Extension of Limitation under Section 168-A of the GST Act

The petitioner challenged the extension of limitation granted by government circulars, arguing that Section 168-A permits extension only in force majeure situations, which were absent in the instant case. The petitioner urged that the circulars granting extension without specifying force majeure were ultra vires and should be set aside.

The Court considered the statutory language of Section 168-A and the conditions under which limitation could be extended. It acknowledged the petitioner's contention that the extensions granted did not comply with the statutory mandate of force majeure.

The Court observed that this issue was intertwined with the limitation challenge and would be addressed in the context of the legislative amendment which impacted the entitlement to ITC and the assessment order.

Validity of the Assessment Order for Lack of Signature or DIN

The petitioner contended that the impugned order was invalid as it lacked a signature or Document Identification Number (DIN), which are essential for authentication and validity of orders under the GST framework.

The Court noted the petitioner's submission that absence of these formalities rendered the order non-est and void. The Court recognized the importance of procedural compliance in issuance of orders but did not elaborate extensively on this point in the judgment, focusing instead on substantive entitlement to ITC and limitation issues.

Entitlement to Input Tax Credit under Section 16(2) of the GST Act

The petitioner argued that Section 16(2) entitles a registered person to claim ITC upon filing returns and submitting necessary documents evidencing entitlement. The petitioner maintained that it had complied with these requirements and hence the denial of ITC by the 3rd respondent was unjustified.

The Court examined the interplay between Section 16(2) and Section 16(4), the latter barring ITC if returns are filed beyond the due date prescribed under Section 39. The petitioner's returns for September 2019 were filed late, triggering rejection of ITC under Section 16(4).

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's contention but noted that the legal landscape was altered by a subsequent amendment.

Impact of Legislative Amendment - Insertion of Section 16(5) of the GST Act

A critical development was the insertion of Section 16(5) by the Finance Act, 2024, effective from 27.09.2024, which states:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), in respect of an invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both pertaining to the Financial Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the registered person shall be entitled to take input tax credit in any return under section 39 which is filed up to the thirtieth day of November, 2021."

The petitioner contended that this provision overrides the restriction in Section 16(4) and entitles it to claim ITC for the relevant financial year 2018-19, as the returns were filed before 30.11.2021.

The Court referred to a Division Bench decision of the same High Court, which had considered an identical issue and held that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(5) grants entitlement to ITC notwithstanding delayed filing beyond the original due date.

Applying the precedent, the Court found that the petitioner was entitled to ITC under the amended Section 16(5), and the rejection of ITC by the 3rd respondent was unsustainable.

Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh assessment in light of the amendment.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court's crucial legal reasoning includes the following verbatim extract from the Division Bench precedent cited:

"By virtue of the non-obstante clause available in Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, the petitioner is entitled to avail the credit which was rejected by the Assessing Officers."

The core principles established are:

• The limitation period under Section 73 of the GST Act is ordinarily three years, but extension must comply with Section 168-A, which requires force majeure conditions for validity.
• Procedural deficiencies such as absence of signature or DIN may render an order invalid, but substantive entitlement to ITC is paramount.
• The amendment by insertion of Section 16(5) creates a special dispensation overriding the limitation on ITC claims for financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21, permitting claims if returns were filed by 30.11.2021.
• This legislative override mandates reassessment of ITC claims rejected solely on delayed filing grounds for the specified years.

Final determinations on each issue are:

• The assessment order dated 30.04.2024 is set aside as it fails to consider the overriding effect of Section 16(5).
• The petitioner is entitled to claim Input Tax Credit for the financial year 2018-19 as per Section 16(5), notwithstanding delayed filing beyond the original due date.
• The matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent for fresh assessment in conformity with the amended statutory provisions.
• No order as to costs was made.

---