M/S Emotions Transmission PVT LTD, Through Its One Of The Directors, Namely, Mukesh Kumar Pandey vs. Union Of INDIA ,Thro The Pr. Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise, Ranchi

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned Order-In-Original dated 26.07.2023 and the consequential garnishee order dated 18.12.2025. The Court reasoned that subsequent legislative developments, specifically the insertion of sub-section (5) to Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the clarification issued by the CBIC vide Circular No. 237/31/2024/GST, necessitated a reconsideration of the matter. The Court noted that a coordinate bench had previously set aside similar orders and remitted the matters for fresh consideration based on these subsequent developments. Therefore, following this precedent, the Court remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority for a fresh decision, taking into account the impact of the aforementioned subsequent developments. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to dispose of the proceedings expeditiously, within four months from the date of appearance. All contentions of the parties were left open to be decided by the Assessing Officer. The issue of refund was expressly left to abide by the orders of the Assessing Officer.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Emotions Transmission Pvt. Ltd., challenged an Order-in-Original No. 09/Supdt/CGST & CX/DGR-R/2023-24 dated 26.07.2023, passed by the Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Range Deoghar (Respondent No. 3). This order rejected Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 8,48,496/- for the Financial Year 2018-19. The rejection was based on the ground that the petitioner filed GSTR-3B returns for July 2018 to March 2019 after the due date for claiming ITC, contravening Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to reverse the ITC along with interest and penalty. A subsequent garnishee order dated 18.12.2025 was also issued to the petitioner's banker. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and declare their eligibility for the ITC based on subsequent legislative amendments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 8,48,496/- for the Financial Year 2018-19, notwithstanding the fact that their GSTR-3B returns were filed after the due date, in light of the insertion of sub-section (5) to Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024? The petitioner argued that the insertion of sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017, which extended the due date for filing GSTR-3B returns to 30th November 2021 for the Financial Years 2017-18 to 2020-21, validated their claim for ITC. They contended that their returns were filed within this extended period. They relied on the CBIC Circular No. 237/31/2024/GST dated 15.10.2024 and decisions of coordinate benches of the High Court in Vinod Udaipuri v. Union of India and Manoj Kumar Singh v. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise, Ranchi. The respondents, Union of India and its officers, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claims in the judgment.