Input tax credit under Section 16(5) recognised as a fresh cause of action, overriding earlier time-limit objections.

Section 16(5) of the CGST Act was treated as a later, overriding and independent basis for claiming input tax credit where its own conditions, including filing before the prescribed cut-off date, were satisfied. The earlier adverse decision concerning the validity of Section 16(4) did not bar relief under the subsequent provision, because Section 16(5) created a fresh cause of action. The assessment order declining credit was therefore quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing, with credit to be granted if otherwise admissible under Section 16(5).

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could invoke Section 16(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to claim input tax credit despite an earlier adverse decision on the validity of Section 16(4) of the said Act, and whether the assessment order declining the credit was liable to be quashed and reconsidered.

Analysis: Section 16(5), being a later inserted provision, was treated as a fresh statutory basis for claiming input tax credit if the return was filed before the prescribed cut-off date. The opening words of the provision, giving it overriding effect over subsection (4), were treated as displacing the earlier time-limit objection where the conditions of Section 16(5) were satisfied. The earlier challenge to Section 16(4) did not bar the present claim, since the later provision created a separate cause of action.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to the benefit of Section 16(5), the assessment order was quashed, and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration with an opportunity of hearing, with the benefit of Section 16(5) to be granted if otherwise admissible.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was set aside and reconsideration was ordered on the basis of the later statutory entitlement under Section 16(5).

Ratio Decidendi: A later inserted overriding provision granting input tax credit on fulfillment of its own conditions constitutes an independent and fresh cause of action, and earlier adverse litigation on the preceding time-limit provision does not bar relief under the subsequent provision.

---