HomeGSTThis Ruling By Kerala High Court Opens Door For Revisiting Denied GST...

This Ruling By Kerala High Court Opens Door For Revisiting Denied GST ITC Claims

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Kerala High Court in the case of Lloyd Insulations India Limited Versus State Tax Officer has opened the door for revisiting denied GST ITC claims.

The bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that on account of notification of Sub-Section (5) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts, the petitioner will be entitled to input tax credit, which has been denied to the petitioner. 

The bench directed the competent authority to revisit the case and pass fresh orders, taking into account the newly inserted Section 16(5) of the CGST Act.

The petitioner/assessee was aggrieved by the fact that petitioner has been denied the benefit of input tax credit on account of the provisions contained in Sub Section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts, for the financial year 2019-20, through Ext.P3 order dated 23.08.2024.

The petitioner contended that, with the notification of Sub-Section (5) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts, the petitioner would now be entitled to the benefit of input tax credit which has been denied to the petitioner.

Sub-section (5) and sub-section (6) of section 16 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “CGST Act”) inserted in section 16 of the CGST Act, with effect from the 1st day of July, 2017, vide section 118 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, whereby the time limit to avail input tax credit under provisions of sub-section (4) of section 16 of CGST Act has been retrospectively extended in certain specified cases.

The court quashed the order to the extent that it denied input tax credit to the petitioner on account of the provisions of Sub Section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts and directing the competent authority to pass fresh orders, after taking note of the provisions contained in Section 16(5) of the CGST/SGST Acts and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months.

Read More: Patna High Court Upholds Notification For Extension For Issuance Of SCN U/s 73 of GST Act

Case Details

Case Title: Lloyd Insulations India Limited Versus State Tax Officer

Case No.: WP(C) NO. 40443 OF 2024

Date: 15/11/2024 

Counsel For Petitioner: Aditya Unnikrishnan,  Nivedita A.Kamath, Binisha Baby,  Saritha K.S., Anil D. Nair 

Counsel For Respondent: Jasmine M M

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Criminal Case Against Widow Can’t Automatically Block Son’s Compassionate Appointment: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court examined the scope of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance...

Falling Tree Branch Not Motor Accident, Yet Victim Awarded ₹25 Lakh Compensation: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that injuries caused by a falling roadside tree branch...

Supreme Court Protects Child Victim from Repeated Psychological Evaluation; Sets Aside Bombay High Court’s Multi-Expert Panel Order

The Supreme Court has held that courts must prioritize the welfare, dignity, emotional security...

Fresh SCN Mandatory Before Punishment if Misconduct is Proved Through De Novo Proceedings After Defective Inquiry: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that where a departmental inquiry is found defective and...

More like this

Criminal Case Against Widow Can’t Automatically Block Son’s Compassionate Appointment: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court examined the scope of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance...

Falling Tree Branch Not Motor Accident, Yet Victim Awarded ₹25 Lakh Compensation: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that injuries caused by a falling roadside tree branch...

Supreme Court Protects Child Victim from Repeated Psychological Evaluation; Sets Aside Bombay High Court’s Multi-Expert Panel Order

The Supreme Court has held that courts must prioritize the welfare, dignity, emotional security...