IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
RAMACHANDRAN G – Appellant
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE RANGE 3 – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges assessment order denying itc for late return under sec.16(4). (Para 1) |
| 2. sec.16(5) non-obstante overrides sec.16(4), entitling timely filed itc. (Para 2) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of CGST/SGST Act 2017. The challenge in this writ petition is raised against Ext.P1 order in original passed under Sec.73 of the CGST Act. As per the said order, the input tax credit claimed by the petitioner, pertaining to the month of March 2020 was declined on the reason that, the petitioner failed to submit the return within in the period stipulated under Sec.16(4) of the CGST Act. The challenge is raised against Ext.P1 mainly on the ground that, by virtue of Sec.16(5) of the CGST Act, which is newly introduced, the petitioner is entitled to claim the input tax credit.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I find merits in the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this case, it is discernible from Ext.P1 order itself that, the petitioner had submitted return for the the March 2020, on 16.05.2021 and therefore, the petitioner had filed the return before
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.