https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774199 The HC quashed the rejection order dated 11.03.2025 and directed fresh consideration of petitioner's rectification application. The court held that petitioner was entitled to input tax credit under retrospectively amended Section 16(5) of TNGST/CGST Act, 2017, which overrides Section 16(4) limitations for financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21. Since petitioner's returns were filed within the extended timeline permitted by Section 16(5), the ITC disallowance was unjustified. The court found the summary rejection of rectification application without discussion violated natural justice principles. Petitioner was entitled to refund of Rs. 2,98,748 paid against the invalid demand, as the retrospective amendment nullified the basis for disallowance. en-us Wed, 18 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jul 2025 08:38:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774199 The HC quashed the rejection order dated 11.03.2025 and directed fresh consideration of petitioner's rectification application. The court held that petitioner was entitled to input tax credit under retrospectively amended Section 16(5) of TNGST/CGST Act, 2017, which overrides Section 16(4) limitations for financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21. Since petitioner's returns were filed within the extended timeline permitted by Section 16(5), the ITC disallowance was unjustified. The court found the summary rejection of rectification application without discussion violated natural justice principles. Petitioner was entitled to refund of Rs. 2,98,748 paid against the invalid demand, as the retrospective amendment nullified the basis for disallowance. Case-Laws GST Wed, 18 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774199