1. Taxpayer challenged an order denying input tax credit for a specific period due to alleged failure to meet timeline requirements under the CGST Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68320
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Shoba Annamma Eapen, J
Saidali Karimpanakkal – Appellant
Versus
Superintendent, Central Tax and Central Excise, Perinthalmanna Range – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 7066 OF 2026
Important Points
The non-obstante clause in Section 16(5) of the CGST Act overrides the timeline restrictions for claiming input tax credit stipulated in Section 16(4), provided the returns are filed within the cut-off date specified in Section 16(5).
Subject
Taxation - GST
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Central Goods and Services Tax Act - Input Tax Credit - Filing of returns - Overriding effect of Section 16(5) over Section 16(4) - Where a taxpayer submits returns within the cut-off date specified under Section 16(5), the timeline prescribed under Section 16(4) loses significance due to the non-obstante clause. (Para 4)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of input tax credit under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act despite failing to meet the timelines under Section 16(4).
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of input tax credit under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act despite failing to meet the timelines under Section 16(4).
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Abijith C, Vinu Chand, Geevarghese Mathews, Sheena K.S, Ragin Roy, Reshma K, Rajan K. Paul, Kevin Seby Manikathan, Anu Paul
For the Respondents: V. Girishkumar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Abijith C, Vinu Chand, Geevarghese Mathews, Sheena K.S, Ragin Roy, Reshma K, Rajan K. Paul, Kevin Seby Manikathan, Anu Paul
For the Respondents: V. Girishkumar
Table of Contents
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a registered taxpayer under the provisions of the CGST and SGST Act , filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, by which the input tax credit claimed by the petitioner pertaining to January 2020 to March 2020 was declined for the reason that the petitioner failed to submit the returns within the period stipulated in Section 16(4) of the CGST Act.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, it is entitled to get the benefit of input tax credit in the light of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, as the petitioner had already submitted the return before the cut-off date under the said provision, which is 30.11.2021.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
4. The case of the petitioner is that, it is entitled to the benefit of input tax credit in the light of Section 16(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “the CGST Act”), as the petitioner had already submitted the returns before the cut-off date under the said provision, which is 30.11.2021.
4. On a perusal of Ext.P1 order, it is seen that the returns for January 2020 to March 2020 were filed by the petitioner on 24.09.2021, 30.09.2021 and 30.09.2021 respectively. Thus, it is evident that the returns were submitted within the cut-off date contemplated under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act; and hence, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit. This is particularly because, in Section 16(5), there is a non-obstante clause as regards Section 16(4); and therefore, once the taxpayer submits the return within the cut-off date contemplated under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, the timeline in Section 16(4) loses its significance.
In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as follows:
a) Ext.P1 order is hereby set aside.
b) The first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and grant the benefits of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, if otherwise entitled, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
c) It is made clear that if any fee is payable for the belated filing of the returns, if not already paid, the first respondent shall be at liberty to realize the same in accordance with law.
