9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (7) TMI 462 - HC - GSTBelated filing of petition long after the issuance of the orders - HELD THAT - It is noticed that parliament amended Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services TAx Act 2017 by inserting Section 16(5) of the Act vide Finance (No.2) Act 2024. The issue is now squarely covered in favour of the petitioner in terms of M/s.SJB Automobiles Private Limited Rep by its Director Mr.Siva Balakrishnan Vs The Assistant Commissioner of GST Central Excise Coimbatore 2024 (12) TMI 330 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with the statutory amendment of Section 16 of CGST Act this writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order stands quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Legality of belated availing of Input Tax Credit under Section 16 of CGST Act The relevant legal framework initially governing the availing of ITC was Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, which prescribed strict timelines for claiming ITC. The impugned orders held that the petitioner contravened these provisions by availing ITC beyond the due date for filing the relevant GSTR-3B returns, specifically beyond 20-10-2019 for the September 2019 period. The orders further held that such ineligible ITC was recoverable under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, and Rule 142(1)(a) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner's claim was initially disallowed based on the strict interpretation of Section 16(4), which did not permit ITC claims beyond the prescribed time limits. The respondent's orders emphasized the need for reversal of ITC availed belatedly and recovery in cash due to insufficient electronic credit ledger balance. Issue 2: Impact of the Amendment by Finance (No.2) Act, 2024 - Insertion of Section 16(5) and (6) Parliament intervened by amending Section 16 of the CGST Act through the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, inserting sub-sections (5) and (6) with retrospective effect from 1st July 2017. This amendment explicitly extended the time limit for availing ITC for invoices or debit notes pertaining to the financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21, allowing registered persons to claim ITC in returns filed up to 30th November 2021. The Court relied heavily on this legislative amendment, which effectively overruled the strict time bar imposed by Section 16(4) for the relevant financial years. The amendment also addressed situations involving cancellation and revocation of registration, providing further clarity on ITC entitlement. The Court referenced recent judicial pronouncements, notably the decision in M/s. SJB Automobiles Private Limited, where similar issues were adjudicated in favor of the taxpayer based on the same amendment. Additionally, the Court cited the order in M/s. Sagar Brush Industries, where assessment and appellate orders denying belated ITC claims were set aside, and cases remanded for fresh consideration in light of the amendment. The Court took note of the Central Government's notification (No.22/2024-CENTRAL TAX dated 08.10.2024) formally notifying the amendment, thereby making Section 16(5) a binding statutory provision. Issue 3: Validity of the impugned orders and procedural propriety of the writ petition The petitioner's writ petition was filed belatedly, long after issuance of the impugned orders. However, the Court observed that the issue was squarely covered in favor of the petitioner by the recent amendment and judicial precedents. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage. The Court quashed the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh adjudication on merits and in accordance with the amended Section 16 of the CGST Act. No costs were imposed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. Application of Law to Facts and Treatment of Competing Arguments The respondent's argument rested on the strict application of Section 16(4) and the consequent disallowance of ITC claimed after the prescribed deadline. The petitioner relied on the retrospective amendment to Section 16(5) as a legislative relief enabling belated ITC claims for the relevant financial years. The Court gave primacy to the legislative intent manifested through the amendment, recognizing Parliament's "olive branch" to taxpayers who had availed ITC belatedly for the specified period. The Court found that the amendment superseded the earlier restrictive provisions and rendered the impugned orders unsustainable. The Court's reasoning was supported by the consistent judicial approach in related cases, which had set aside orders denying belated ITC claims and remitted matters for reconsideration under the amended law. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held:
This principle enshrined in Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, as inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, was pivotal in the Court's decision. The Court concluded that the impugned orders denying ITC on the ground of belated availing were unsustainable in light of the statutory amendment and relevant judicial precedents. The orders were quashed, and the matter remanded to the respondent to pass fresh orders consistent with the amended law. The Court emphasized that the amendment was a legislative recognition of the need to extend relief to taxpayers who had failed to claim ITC within the earlier prescribed timelines, thereby establishing a core principle of statutory relief through retrospective amendment.
|
