https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794334 Prior intimation to the department about proposed input tax credit did not bar invocation of Section 74 or establish bona fide entitlement to blocked credit. The HC held that the petitioner had availed credit beyond the limited amount indicated, and that the extended limitation period was justified. Input tax credit on works contract and construction-related inputs and services was also inadmissible under Sections 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d), and the credit was time-barred under Section 16(4). In view of Safari Retreats, the claim failed, and the demand, interest under Section 50, and penalty under Section 74 were sustained. en-us Mon, 08 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Jul 2026 08:49:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794334 Prior intimation to the department about proposed input tax credit did not bar invocation of Section 74 or establish bona fide entitlement to blocked credit. The HC held that the petitioner had availed credit beyond the limited amount indicated, and that the extended limitation period was justified. Input tax credit on works contract and construction-related inputs and services was also inadmissible under Sections 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d), and the credit was time-barred under Section 16(4). In view of Safari Retreats, the claim failed, and the demand, interest under Section 50, and penalty under Section 74 were sustained. Case-Laws GST Mon, 08 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794334