Case Law
Subject : Taxation Law - Indirect Tax
Chennai, Tamil Nadu – The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, after the petitioner chose to withdraw the case. The provision, which imposes a time limit for claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC), remains a contentious issue for taxpayers nationwide.
A Division Bench comprising Honourable Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Honourable Mr. Justice N. Senthilkumar presided over the matter.
The petition, filed by M/s. Sri Ramya Traders, sought a declaration that Section 16(4) of the CGST Act and the corresponding rules are ultra vires the parent Act and violate fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the time limit for availing ITC was arbitrary and infringed upon Articles 14 (right to equality), 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business), and 300A (right to property).
The respondents in the case included the Union of India, the State of Tamil Nadu, and the Deputy State Tax Officer, Salem.
During the proceedings on July 9, 2025, the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V. Srikanth, made an endorsement on the case file stating that the petitioner did not wish to pursue the matter further.
Accepting this submission, the High Court issued a brief order stating: "Mr.V.Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, makes an endorsement to the effect that the petitioner does not wish to pursue this Writ Petition, recording which, this Writ Petition and connected miscellaneous petition are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs."
The dismissal of the petition as "withdrawn" means the court did not deliberate on the merits of the constitutional challenge to Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. Consequently, this order does not set a legal precedent on the validity of the provision, and the crucial legal question remains open for adjudication in other pending cases before various high courts and the Supreme Court.
For businesses and tax professionals, the time limit for claiming ITC as prescribed under Section 16(4) continues to be legally enforceable until a superior court rules otherwise. This withdrawal highlights the complexities and strategic considerations involved in challenging major tax legislation.
#GST #MadrasHighCourt #TaxLaw
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.