M/S. Bharath Biologicals vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise
Held
The Court held that the impugned order, based on the previous interpretation of Section 16(4), may no longer be sustainable due to the newly inserted Section 16(5). The respondent was directed to re-do the assessment considering the amendment.
Facts
The petitioner challenged an order disallowing Input Tax Credit (ITC) solely on the grounds of being claimed beyond the period prescribed under Section 16(4) of the GST Acts. An amendment, Section 16(5), was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, with effect from July 1, 2017.
Key Issues
Whether the disallowance of ITC, based on the time limit under Section 16(4), is valid in light of the subsequent amendment introducing Section 16(5) which provides for a different period for claiming ITC for specific financial years.
Sections Cited
Section 16(4), Section 16(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 14.12.2023, on the premise that the Input Tax C
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.