Section 16(5) CGST Act Allows Late ITC Claims Until Nov 30, 2021; Case Remanded for Fresh Hearing

Amit Jasrasaria Versus The Union Of India, The Principal Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise Guwahati, The Commissioner Central GST Commissionerate Dibrugarh, The Assistant Commissioner Central GST And Central Excise Assam, The Superintendent (A/E) Diburgarh.

Amit Jasrasaria Versus The Union Of India, The Principal Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise Guwahati, The Commissioner Central ...

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

• Whether the claim for Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the financial year 2018-2019, filed after the due date prescribed under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, can be rejected.
• Effect and applicability of the amendments introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, specifically Sections 16(5) and 16(6) of the CGST Act, 2017, on the eligibility for ITC claims pertaining to financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21.
• Whether retrospective effect of the amendment to Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017, alters the entitlement to ITC and impacts the validity of demand notices issued prior to amendment.
• Scope and procedural requirements for reassessment of ITC claims in light of the amended provisions.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Eligibility for Input Tax Credit (ITC) when claim is filed after due date under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, prior to amendment, restricts the entitlement of a registered person to take ITC after the earlier of (a) 30th November following the end of the financial year to which the invoice pertains, or (b) furnishing of the relevant annual return. The due date for filing the GSTR-3B return for the financial year 2018-19 was 20-10-2019, and the petitioner filed on 23-10-2019, thus beyond the prescribed deadline.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court recognized that under the pre-amendment regime, the claim for ITC filed beyond the deadline prescribed under Section 16(4) was liable to be rejected. The impugned order rejecting the claim on this ground was consistent with the statutory provisions before amendment.

Application of law to facts: The petitioner's ITC claim for Rs. 79,05,895/- was filed after the due date, thus prima facie barred under Section 16(4).

Conclusions: Under the original Section 16(4), the claim was rightly rejected for being time-barred.

Issue 2: Effect of Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 amendments (Sections 16(5) and 16(6)) on ITC eligibility for financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, introduced sub-sections (5) and (6) to Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017, which provide that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), a registered person may claim ITC for invoices or debit notes pertaining to financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21 in any return filed up to 30th November 2021.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized the overriding effect of the amendment, which relaxes the earlier stringent timeline for claiming ITC for specified financial years. The amendment was notified with retrospective effect from 01-07-2017, thereby validating claims made beyond the original deadline.

Key evidence and findings: The amendment notification (No. 17/2024-Central Tax) and submissions by the respondent's counsel acknowledged the retrospective effect and applicability of the amendment.

Application of law to facts: The petitioner's claim for the 2018-19 financial year, though filed after the original due date, falls within the extended timeline under Section 16(5) and is thus eligible for ITC.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent initially rejected the claim based on the original Section 16(4). However, upon amendment and retrospective effect, the respondent conceded the petitioner's entitlement.

Conclusions: The petitioner is entitled to avail ITC for the relevant period under the amended provisions, rendering the original rejection unsustainable.

Issue 3: Retrospective effect of amendment and its impact on the validity of demand notices and prior orders

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The retrospective amendment to Section 16 was notified effective from 01-07-2017. Section 16(6) further provides for ITC entitlement in cases of cancellation and subsequent revocation of registration.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the retrospective amendment nullifies the basis for the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 27-12-2023, which was issued under the pre-amendment regime.

Application of law to facts: Since the amendment allows ITC claims beyond the previously prescribed deadline, the demand notice and the impugned order rejecting the claim are rendered redundant and unsustainable.

Conclusions: The demand notice and the impugned order stand set aside in light of the retrospective amendment.

Issue 4: Procedural directions for reassessment of ITC claims post-amendment

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court directed remand of the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for issuance of a fresh Show Cause Notice, if necessary, and to proceed in accordance with the amended provisions, ensuring due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Application of law to facts: The petitioner's claim is to be reconsidered afresh under the amended statutory framework, with procedural fairness.

Conclusions: The matter is remanded for fresh adjudication consistent with the amended Section 16, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.