M/S Szk Logistics, Thro Its Proprietor, Namely, Ramiz Alam Khan vs. Union Of INDIA, Through The Principal Commissioner

Held

The Court decided to issue a limited mandamus to the Assistant Commissioner (2nd respondent) to dispose of the petitioner's rectification application dated December 11, 2025, in accordance with law and on its own merits within two months from the date of uploading the order. The Court explicitly kept open the petitioner's contentions regarding the applicability of Circular dated October 15, 2024, and its prescribed limitation period, for the 2nd respondent to address. The 2nd respondent is directed to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order. All contentions of the parties remain open for the 2nd respondent's decision in the first instance. The Court noted that the cited case of Vinod Udaipuri may not strictly apply as it did not involve the issue of delay or the circular, and was disposed of on concession. The petition is disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. SZK Logistics, challenged an order-in-original dated September 6, 2023, and a summary of order dated December 30, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Dhanbad. This order rejected the petitioner's Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the financial year 2017-2018, exercising powers under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that an amendment to Section 16 of the CGST Act, specifically the insertion of Section 16(5) with retrospective effect from July 1, 2017, by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, rendered the impugned order vulnerable. The respondents contended that the petitioner's application for rectification, dated December 11, 2025, was filed beyond the six-month period prescribed by Circular No. 237/31/2024-GST dated October 15, 2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order-in-original rejecting the petitioner's ITC for FY 2017-2018 is rendered vulnerable and liable to be set aside in light of the retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, with effect from July 1, 2017, by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, makes the impugned order, which rejected ITC for FY 2017-2018, vulnerable and it should be set aside. Reliance was placed on a coordinate bench's decision in Vinod Udaipuri Vs. Union of India & Ors., where a similar order was set aside based on concession due to the insertion of Section 16(5). Respondents' contention: The petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the retrospective amendment as their application for rectification, dated December 11, 2025, was filed beyond the six-month period stipulated in Circular No. 237/31/2024-GST dated October 15, 2024. Therefore, no mandamus may issue to consider the rectification application.