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) 24662

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
UNNIKRISHNAN RAJAPPAN – Appellant
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT, O/O THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHERTHALA RANGE – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 9586 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.REGHUNATHAN V.G., SHRI.ASOKAN T.A.
For the Respondents: SHRI.MAHADEV M.J., CGC

The eligibility for input tax credit under Sec.16(5) supersedes deadlines set in Sec.16(4) if returns are filed timely.

Headnote:The petitioner, an assessee under the CGST/SGST Act 2017, appealed against the denial of input tax credit based on an assessment order. The court found merit in the petitioner's claim for credit under Sec.16(5), given timely submission of returns. The court quashed the denial and directed reconsideration of the input tax credit entitlement. The judgment highlights the importance of Sec.16(5) over Sec.16(4) regarding credit eligibility.

Table of Content
1. the petitioner is an assessee under cgst/sgst act. (Para 1)
2. the court found merit in timely submission of returns for input tax credit eligibility. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of CGST/SGST Act 2017. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner is against the denial of input tax credit claimed by the petitioner, as per Ext.P1 order of assessment, pertaining to the year 2018-2019, on the reason that, the petitioner failed to submit the returns within in the period stipulated under Sec.16(4) of the CGST Act . According to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit under Sec.16(5) of the CGST Act , in view of the fact that the petitioner submitted the return for the month of November, 2018 to March, 2019 within the cutoff date contemplated under Sec.16(5) of the Act, i.e, 30.11.2021.

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

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made available the returns submitted by the petitioner in respect of the period referred to above, which would indicate that, all the said retruns were filed on 06.11.2019. In such circumstances, in the light of statutory stipulations contained in per Sec.16(5), the petitioner is entitled to the benefit.

4. This is particularly because, Sec.16(5) starts with the wordings “Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub Sec.4" and this would mean that, once the returns are filed within the statutory period contemplated under Sec.16(5), the timeline contemplated under Sec.16(4) losses its significance. Therefore, an interference is required as the petitioner is entitled to get input tax credit in the Sec.16(5).

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P1, to the extent it denies the input tax credit for non- complaince of Sec.16(4) with a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter and grant the benefits under Sec.16(5) of the CGST Act , if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to the same. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

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