Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
South Indian Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Joint Director, Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge on input tax credit eligibility (Para 1 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. interpretation of cgst provisions (Para 3 , 10 , 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 3. counterarguments on double benefit (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. prohibition on input tax credit (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT :
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.
In all these cases, the banking companies registered under the Companies Act, have approached this Court seeking various reliefs. The reliefs in W.P.(C) No.29087/2025 and W.P. (C) No.24348/2025, consist of the challenge against the show cause notices issued to the respective petitioners under Section 74 of the CGST Act. In W.P.(C) No.23546/2024, the challenge is raised against the Order-in-Original passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act. In all these cases, a common issue that arises, relates to the entitlement of the input tax credit, in respect of a portion of the tax component on which the petitioners have claimed depreciation under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
2. The issue involved herein has to be decided, based on the interpretation to be given to Section 16 (3), Section 17 (2) and (4) of the CGST Act that relate to the claim of input tax credit and the restrictions in granting such reliefs.
3. In W.P.(C
The prohibition on claiming input tax credit per Section 16(3) of the CGST Act relates specifically to the tax component for which depreciation is claimed and does not extend to unavailed input tax c....
Proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act cannot be initiated without evidence of fraud or misstatement if prior proceedings under Section 73 have been concluded.
Input tax credit entitlement is determined by submission date under Sec.16(5) of the CGST Act, overriding earlier deadlines in Sec.16(4).
Section 16(4) of the CGST Act is constitutionally valid and does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 300A of the Constitution.
Section 16(5) CGST Act overrides Sec.16(4) via non-obstante clause, allowing ITC if return filed by cutoff date.
Input tax credit claims require proof of actual tax payment by the supplier; failure to demonstrate this results in denial of credit.
The court ruled that inadvertent misclassification of IGST as CGST and SGST does not constitute excess credit utilization, especially when no revenue loss occurs.
The court established that computers/laptops used for providing services do not qualify as capital goods under the KVAT Act, thus entitling the petitioner to transitional credit under Section 140(3) ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
