https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784444 The dominant issue was whether rejection of rectification of an appellate order under s.107 of the WBGST Act, 2017, concerning deferred availment of ITC allegedly denied under s.16(4), was legally sustainable in light of a later notification. The HC held that the CBIC notification dated 08.10.2024 issued under s.148 clarifies eligibility and prescribes a procedure to seek rectification of original/appellate orders passed on the ground of wrongful ITC availment due to s.16(4), where the taxpayer may be entitled under s.16(5) or s.16(6). Consequently, the impugned rejection order was set aside and the matter remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law. en-us Mon, 17 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2026 08:04:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784444 The dominant issue was whether rejection of rectification of an appellate order under s.107 of the WBGST Act, 2017, concerning deferred availment of ITC allegedly denied under s.16(4), was legally sustainable in light of a later notification. The HC held that the CBIC notification dated 08.10.2024 issued under s.148 clarifies eligibility and prescribes a procedure to seek rectification of original/appellate orders passed on the ground of wrongful ITC availment due to s.16(4), where the taxpayer may be entitled under s.16(5) or s.16(6). Consequently, the impugned rejection order was set aside and the matter remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Case-Laws GST Mon, 17 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784444