Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... primary arguments presented in the case centered around the following key issues: * The interpretation of Section 54(3) of the CGST/SGST Act, which deals with the refund of unutilized ITC. * The constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Act, which impose conditions and restrictions on the eligibility for ITC. * The applicability of the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) and its impact on the time limit prescribed u/s 16(4) for availing ITC. Discussions and Findings of the Court The court engaged in a detailed discussion and analysis of the relevant provisions and the arguments presented by the parties. The key findings and observations of the court are as follows: Interpretation of Section 54....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pted the submission that a refund of unutilized ITC would be allowed only where the inverted duty structure has arisen due to the rate of tax on input goods being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies, as per Section 54(3). * The court rejected the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Act. * The court clarified that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override the time limit prescribed u/s 16(4) for availing ITC. * The court granted liberty to the petitioners who could claim the benefit of certain circulars issued by the Government to make their claims within one month before the appropriate authority. * The court directed that the time limit for furni....