https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767632 The HC quashed attachment orders against petitioner's banking account following precedent from Sri Ganapathi Pandi Industries case. The court held that while ITC claims were time-barred under Section 16(4) of CGST Act 2017, they fell within the extended period under Section 16(5). The attachment orders were set aside specifically regarding ITC claims that were barred by limitation under Section 16(4) but permissible under Section 16(5). Writ petition was allowed. en-us Mon, 17 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jun 2025 09:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767632 The HC quashed attachment orders against petitioner's banking account following precedent from Sri Ganapathi Pandi Industries case. The court held that while ITC claims were time-barred under Section 16(4) of CGST Act 2017, they fell within the extended period under Section 16(5). The attachment orders were set aside specifically regarding ITC claims that were barred by limitation under Section 16(4) but permissible under Section 16(5). Writ petition was allowed. Case-Laws GST Mon, 17 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767632