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) 10165

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
MV JOSEPH & SONS – Appellant
Versus
STATE TAX OFFICER, TAXPAYER SERVICES CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA SOUTH – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3439 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN, SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR, SHRI.LIJO VARGHESE
For the Respondents: SHRI.ARUN AJAY SHANKAR

Timely submission of tax returns can enable claims for input tax credits despite previous procedural limitations.

Headnote:The petitioner, a registered taxpayer, challenged an order under Section 73 of the CGST Act denying input tax credit for July 2017 to March 2018, citing compliance with Section 16(5). The court found merit in the petitioner's argument that, given timely return submissions, the limitations of Section 16(4) did not apply. The court ordered the quashing of the prior order and directed reconsideration within three months. The decision must allow the petitioner to be heard.

Table of Content
1. registered taxpayer seeks input tax credit. (Para 1)
2. court finds merit in the petitioner's argument. (Para 2 , 3)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a registered tax payer under the provisions of the CGST and KGST Act. The grievance raised by the petitioner is against Ext.P2 order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act , denying the input tax credit in respect of the months of July 2017 to March 2018. The challenge is raised by the petitioner against Ext.P2, by placing reliance upon Section 16(5) of the CGST Act , which provides that, if the tax payer is submitting the returns on or before 30.11.2021, he shall be entitled to get the input tax credit. In Ext.P2, the input tax credit was declined, mainly on the reason that the petitioner failed to submit the returns for the months referred to above, within the statutory period contemplated under Section

16(4).

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

3. It is discernible from Ext.P1 that, the petitioner submitted the returns during the relevant period on 16.08.2019, which is within the cut off date contemplated under Section 16(5). It is also to be noted that Section 16(5) starts with the wording “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Sub Section 4” which would indicate that, once the tax payer submits the return within the time limit contemplated under Sections

16(5), 16(4) losses its significance.

In such circumstances an interference is required. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P2, with a direction to the 1st respondent to re-consider the matter and grant the benefits to the petitioner under Section 16(5), if the petitioner is otherwise entitled. A decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after giving the petitioner an opportunity for being 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