SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 241

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Krishnan Ramasamy, J.
M/s. Malligai Agencies - Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Madurai - I Division - Respondent
W.P.(MD)Nos.599 & 600 of 2026 & W.M.P(MD)Nos.522, 525, 527 & 528 of 2026
Decided On : 11-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Raja. Karthikeyan
For the Respondent: Mr. R. Gowri Shankar

Court ruled that registered dealers entitled to Input Tax Credit despite delays in filing due to valid reasons, following amendments to GST law retroactively extending deadlines for claims.

Headnote:(A) Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Sections 16(4) and 16(5) - Writ petitions filed challenging orders reversing input tax credit (ITC) claims - Petitioners faced delays in filing GSTR-3B due to external factors (financial constraints, health issues) - The Court notes that the GST Council extended the deadline for ITC claims for specific financial years, making the impugned orders unsustainable - It quashed the orders under review and issued directions for de-freezing bank accounts and other procedural aspects. (Paras 9-12)

(B) Limitation - Registered dealers are allowed ITC claims under amended provisions even if initial claims were filed late due to justified reasons, reinforcing the principles of fair administrative action. (Paras 10.1, 10.2)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the GST, challenged the reversal of their ITC claims due to delays in filing GSTR-3B returns, citing various unavoidable circumstances.

Findings of Court:
The quashing of the impugned orders is warranted due to the extension of ITC deadlines, reinstating the petitioners' rights to claim ITC.

Issues: The court addressed the legality of the reversal of ITC claims based on limitation laws and the implications of subsequent amendments to the CGST Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the late filing of ITC claims due to significant external difficulties is justified, particularly following legislative changes that support such claims retroactively.

Result: Writ Petitions allowed and impugned orders quashed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners challenge orders on itc claim. (Para 1)
2. central issue covered by prior ruling. (Para 2)
3. writ petitions allowed; procedural instructions given. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)

ORDER :

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

These Writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner/taxpayer, who is registered dealer on the files of the respondent-Department under the provisions of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act)/ Central GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT ( CGST Act) as the case may be, challenging the orders passed by the respondent-Department, whereby, their claim of ITC was reversed/negatived and consequently, the petitioners have been directed to pay tax/penalty/interest.

2. When these Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition, has been squarely covered by the common order of this Court, dated 17.10.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.25081 of 2023, etc., batch, wherein, this Court has categorically held in paragraphs 9 to 12 as under:

“9. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are registered dealers on the files of the respondent- Department under the provisions of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017/CGST Act 2017. Though the petitioners have filed GSTR-1 returns in time, however, insofar as claim of ITC is concerned, since the petitioners were faced with certain difficulties, such as Financial constraints (as there was complete lock down due to outbreak Covid-19) health related ailments, fire accidents, they were unable to file GSTR-3B returns, which prompted them not raising their claim ITC in time before the prescribed date. Whereas, the respondent-Department without considering such vital aspects and that reasons for the delay is not deliberate, issued the show cause notices to the petitioners, proposing to reverse the ITC availed and went to the extreme level of confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notices by passing the impugned orders,whereby, the claim made by the petitioners for ITC was reversed and the petitioners have been directed to tax/penalty/interest. Aggrieved against the impugned orders, the petitioners are before this Court by way of present Writ Petitions seeking for setting aside the impugned orders.

10. After the filing of these Writ Petitions, certain development took place, i.e. that 53rd GST Council Meeting was held on 22.06.2024, and during the said Meeting, the GST Council recommended for extension of the deadline for availing ITC on any invoice or debit note under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act and this extension would be applicable to any GSTR-3B returns filed for the Fys 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 with a new deadline deemed to be as ''30.11.2021'', to which, the Presidential Assent was also obtained by the Government of India on 16.08.2024, whereby, the financial proposals of the Central Government for the Financial Year 2024-25 was given effect to vide Finance Act, (No.2) of 2024, and in view of the aforesaid enactment, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, issued a Notification, bearing No.17 of 2024-Central Tax, dated 27.09.2024, pursuant to which, a Circular No.237/31/2024-GST was issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, which was addressed to all the Principal Chief Commissioners /Chief Commissioners/Principal Commissioners/Commissioners of Central Tax (All), thereby, clarifying the issues regarding implementation of provision of sub-section (5) and sub-section (6) in Section 16 of CGST Act, 2017, the impugned orders are no longer sustainable and liable to be quashed. In this context, it would be apposite to refer to both Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, as well as amendment made to Section 16 (4) by interpolations of sub-sections 16 (5) and (6), and by insertion of sub-section (5) to Section 16, which are extracted herein under:-

Section 16 (4)

''A regist

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top