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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 10164

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
PALLIKALAKATH ABDUL MAJEED – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TAX PAYER SERVICE CIRCLE NADAKKAVU – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3344 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA KUM.NARAYANI HARIKRISHNAN, SRI.C.S.ARUN SHANKAR, SHRI.ANISH P., SHRI.AKHIL SHAJI, SHRI.K.SURESH CHANDRAN
For the Respondents: ARUN AJAY SHANKAR, G.P

Input tax credit eligibility depends on timely return submissions in compliance with the CGST Act, specifically Sections 16(4) and 16(5).

Headnote:Under the CGST Act, the petitioner challenged the rejection of input tax credit for the assessment year 2018-2019, asserting the right to credit after timely submission of returns as per Section 16(5) despite late filing under Section 16(4). The court found merit in the petitioner's argument, quashing the assessment order and instructing reconsideration for eligible credit. The petition is disposed, mandating completion of reconsideration within three months of this judgment.

Table of Content
1. input tax credit eligibility under cgst based on timely return submissions. (Para 1)
2. court finds merit in petitioner's argument for tax credit. (Para 2)
3. final ruling mandates reconsideration of tax assessment. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a registered tax payer under the provisions of the CGST and KGST Acts. Pertaining to the assessment year 2018-2019, the input tax credit claimed by the petitioner was rejected mainly on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit the returns for the months of February 2019 and March 2019 within the period stipulated under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act . The challenge against the said order of assessment, which was produced as Ext.P1 herein, is raised mainly on the ground that as per Section 16(5) of the CGST Act , the petitioner is entitled to get the input tax credit, as he had already submitted the returns within the cut off date contemplated under the said provision, namely 30.11.2021.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I find merit in the said submission.

3. On going through Ext.P1 order of assessment, it is discernible that the petitioner submitted the returns for the month of February, 2019, on 08.06.2019, and for the month of March, 2019, the same was filed on 11.09.2020. Since Section 16(5) contains a non-obstante clause to the effect that, “Notwithstanding anything is contained in Subsection 4”, I am of the view that, if the tax payer has submitted the return within the cut off date contemplated under Section 16(5), the timeline for filing the return under Section (4) loses its significance. Therefore, an interference is required.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Exts.P1 order of assessment and P6 demand notice, with a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter and grant the benefits under Section 16(5) to the petitioner, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible to the same. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

Sd/-

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