2025 (7) TMI 988 - HC - GST

Reversal of claim of ITC - time limitation - HELD THAT - The impugned order dated 27.02.2025 is quashed insofar as it relates to the claim made by the petitioner for ITC which is barred by limitation in terms of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act 2017 but within the period prescribed in terms of Section 16(5) of the said Act. Petition allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this judgment include:

• Whether the petitioner, a registered dealer under the GST Act, is entitled to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) for invoices or debit notes pertaining to financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21, despite the claim being barred by limitation under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017.
• The applicability and retrospective effect of the amendment to Section 16 of the CGST Act, specifically the insertion of sub-section (5), which extends the deadline for availing ITC beyond the original limitation period.
• The validity of the impugned orders passed by the respondent-Department reversing the claim of ITC and imposing tax, penalty, and interest on the petitioner.
• The procedural and consequential reliefs, including the restraint on recovery proceedings, de-freezing of bank accounts, and refund or adjustment of amounts collected under the impugned orders.
• The scope of the Department's authority to proceed against the petitioner on grounds other than limitation, such as discrepancies, wrong or excess claim of ITC, or fraudulent claims.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Entitlement to ITC despite limitation under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, restricts the entitlement of a registered person to claim ITC with respect to any invoice or debit note after the 30th day of November following the end of the financial year to which such invoice or debit note pertains or furnishing of the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier. Traditionally, this provision imposed a strict limitation period for availing ITC.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the amendment made to Section 16 by the Finance Act (No.2) of 2024, which inserted sub-section (5) with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017. This sub-section explicitly allows registered persons to claim ITC for invoices or debit notes pertaining to the financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21 in any return under Section 39 filed up to 30.11.2021, notwithstanding the limitation under sub-section (4).

The Court observed that the amendment and the subsequent Notification No.17 of 2024-Central Tax and Circular No.237/31/2024-GST issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs clarified and extended the deadline for availing ITC. This legislative intervention was a significant development that superseded the earlier limitation period.

Key evidence and findings: The Court relied on the legislative history, the GST Council's 53rd meeting recommendations, the Finance Act (No.2) of 2024, and the official notifications and circulars issued thereafter. The petitioner's inability to file GSTR-3B returns timely was attributed to genuine difficulties such as financial constraints caused by the COVID-19 lockdown, health issues, and other hardships, which the Department had not adequately considered.

Application of law to facts: Applying the amended Section 16(5) retrospectively, the Court held that the petitioner is entitled to claim ITC for the relevant financial years if the returns were filed on or before 30.11.2021. The impugned orders reversing the ITC claim solely on the ground of limitation were thus unsustainable.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Department contended that the limitation under Section 16(4) barred the petitioner's claim and justified reversal and penalties. However, the Court gave precedence to the legislative amendment and the clarificatory circular, emphasizing that the Department's failure to consider these developments and the genuine reasons for delay rendered the impugned orders liable to be quashed.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the petitioner's claim for ITC within the extended timeline prescribed under Section 16(5) is valid and that the orders reversing such claims on limitation grounds must be quashed.

Issue 2: Validity and consequences of impugned orders reversing ITC and imposing tax/penalty/interest

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The impugned orders were passed under the GST Act provisions relating to reversal of ITC and levy of tax, penalty, and interest for non-compliance or delayed claim.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: Given the amendment to Section 16 and the extended deadline for claiming ITC, the Court found the impugned orders reversing ITC claims on limitation grounds to be no longer sustainable. The Court emphasized that the Department's failure to consider the amendment and the reasons for delay was a procedural irregularity.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's bank accounts had been frozen pursuant to the impugned orders, and recovery proceedings were initiated. The Court noted the hardship caused and directed immediate remedial action.

Application of law to facts: The Court quashed the impugned orders insofar as they related to reversal of ITC claims barred by limitation but within the extended deadline. It restrained the Department from initiating any proceedings based on limitation and directed defreezing of bank accounts and refund/adjustment of tax amounts collected.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Department raised concerns about other issues such as discrepancies, wrong or fake ITC claims. The Court distinguished these issues from the limitation issue and granted liberty to the Department to proceed on those grounds in accordance with law, thus balancing the interests of both parties.

Conclusions: The impugned orders were quashed to the extent they related to limitation-based reversal of ITC. The Department was directed to cease recovery proceedings and take remedial steps, but was allowed to pursue other legitimate grounds for action.

Issue 3: Procedural reliefs and directions

Relevant legal framework: The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to grant interim and consequential reliefs to the petitioner pending final adjudication.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: Recognizing the hardship caused by freezing of bank accounts and recovery actions, the Court ordered immediate defreezing of accounts and restraint on recovery proceedings during the pendency of the writ petition. It also clarified the treatment of any tax amounts collected, permitting refund or adjustment towards future tax liabilities.

Application of law to facts: The directions were directly applicable to the petitioner's factual situation, ensuring protection of their financial interests and preventing undue harassment.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Court balanced the Department's interest in legitimate tax recovery with the petitioner's right to due process and protection from arbitrary action.

Conclusions: The Court's directions ensured procedural fairness and protection of the petitioner's rights while allowing the Department to pursue lawful claims unrelated to limitation.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), in respect of an invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both pertaining to the Financial Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the registered persons shall be entitled to take input tax credit in any return under section 39 which is filed upto the thirtieth day of November, 2021."

"The impugned orders are no longer sustainable and liable to be quashed insofar as it relates to the claim made by the petitioners for ITC which is barred by limitation in terms of Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act, 2017 but, within the period prescribed in terms of Section 16 (5) of the said Act."

"The respondent-Department is restrained from initiating any proceedings against the petitioners by virtue of the impugned orders based on the issue of limitation."

"The respondent-Department is directed to take immediate steps towards defreezure of the concerned petitioners bank accounts."

"If there is any challenge related to issues such as discrepancies in availing the ITC/wrong availment of ITC/excess claim of ITC/Fake ITC claim, as the case may be, or such other issues, liberty is be granted to the respondent-Department to proceed against the assessees/petitioners in furtherance of the impugned orders in accordance with law."

Core principles established include the retrospective application of legislative amendments to extend the limitation period for availing ITC, the necessity for the Department to consider genuine difficulties faced by taxpayers, and the protection of taxpayers from arbitrary reversal of ITC claims solely on limitation grounds. The Court also clarified the procedural safeguards and balance between taxpayer rights and Departmental authority.

Final determinations on each issue were that the petitioner's claim for ITC within the extended timeline is valid; impugned orders reversing ITC on limitation grounds are quashed; recovery proceedings based on limitation are restrained; bank accounts frozen pursuant to such orders must be defreezed; and the Department retains the right to proceed on other substantive grounds in accordance with law.