Judicial Precedents for where constructive delivery was held to be enough satisfaction under S 16(2)(b) of CGST Act, 2017 to claim ITC

[Gautam Godhwani]

By virtue of Section 16(2)(b) wherein entitlement of ITC by a registered person is established only when he has received goods and services or both.

What is construed as ‘received’ has not been defined under the GST Law – whether physical delivery of such goods is required or a symbolic or constructive delivery by transfer of title and thereby transfer of risks and rewards of ownership shall also suffice.

It would be highly appreciated wherein the cases for the latter condition could be given - AKA ITC being allowed from the moment risk in goods has been passed or constructive delivery has taken place instead of actual delivery being the requisite norm, be it of this regime or the previous one.

These would be on the lines of S 19, S 20 and S 26 of SOGA.

One such case is of Automative Components Technology India Private Limited - 2020 (3) TMI 242 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU in AAR Tamil Nadu Order No. 05/ARA/2020 dated 31.01.2020. Another could be the case of the four member bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Duni Chand Rataria vs. Bhuwalka Brothers Ltd.: 1954 (12) TMI 19 - SUPREME COURT has interpreted that delivery to mean and include “constructive delivery” as well.

Thanks and Regards,

Gautam.

AI Summary

Debate on Section 16(2)(b) of CGST Act: Is Constructive Delivery Enough for Input Tax Credit Claims? The forum discusses the interpretation of Section 16(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, specifically whether constructive delivery suffices for claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC). The issue arises from the lack of a clear definition of 'received' goods under GST law. Participants debate if transfer of title and risk without physical delivery meets the requirements, citing judicial precedents and legal provisions. Opinions vary, with some emphasizing the necessity of physical possession to prevent fraudulent ITC claims, while others argue for a broader interpretation allowing constructive receipt. The discussion also touches on related legal cases and the implications of GST provisions.