9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 47 - HC - GSTDenial of input tax credit in terms of the provisions contained in Section 16 (2) (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax/State Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017 - HELD THAT - One opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to prove its claim in terms of the Circulars referred to in paragraph No.101 of the judgment of this Court in M. Trade Links 2024 (6) TMI 288 - KERALA HIGH COURT before the competent authority. This writ petition will stand allowed by setting aside Exts. P2 and P3 orders to the extent it denies input tax credit on account of the provisions contained in Section 16 (2) (c) of the CGST/SGST Acts and directing that the claim of the petitioner shall be considered in terms of the Circulars referred to in paragraph No. 101 of the judgment of this Court in M. Trade Links after affording an opportunity of hearing to an authorised representative of the petitioner.
In the case before the Kerala High Court, presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P., the petitioner was denied input tax credit under Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax/State Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017 (CGST/SGST Acts). The petitioner argued for entitlement to input tax credit based on Circulars referenced in paragraph 101 of the court's decision in *M. Trade Links v. Union of India [2024 KLT OnLine 1624]*. The government contended that the challenge to the orders (Exts. P2 and P3), issued on 24-04-2024, was untimely as the petitioner failed to file the writ petition within the appeal period.
The court, after considering arguments from both parties, decided to grant the petitioner an opportunity to prove its claim in line with the referenced Circulars. The judgment set aside the orders (Exts. P2 and P3) to the extent they denied input tax credit under Section 16(2)(c) and directed the competent authority to reconsider the petitioner's claim. The court emphasized that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim, leaving the competent authority to issue fresh orders in accordance with the law after a hearing.
|
