M/S Unity Infra Projects LTD Represented Through Sri Sudhir Kumar Ray vs. The State Of Jharkhand
Held
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to take Input Tax Credit (ITC) in respect of delayed returns filed for the financial month of March 2019. This decision was based on Clause (5) of Section 16 of the CGST Act, which was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, with effect from 01.07.2017, and a Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) dated 15.10.2024. The Court found that these provisions provided the necessary legal basis to allow the petitioner's claim. Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.12.2023 passed by the State Tax Officer, Urban Circle, Dhanbad, was set aside. The Court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to take the ITC. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Unity Infra Projects Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging an order dated 05.12.2023 passed by the State Tax Officer, Urban Circle, Dhanbad. The dispute pertains to the petitioner's claim for Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the financial month of March 2019. The State Tax Officer's order disallowed this ITC. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court to allow them to claim the ITC, which was denied by the impugned order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the financial month of March 2019, despite the delay in filing returns, in light of the newly inserted Clause (5) of Section 16 of the CGST Act and the subsequent Circular dated 15.10.2024 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the insertion of Clause (5) to Section 16 of the CGST Act, effective from 01.07.2017, and the CBIC Circular dated 15.10.2024, provide a basis for allowing ITC even in cases of delayed returns. They contended that these provisions should be applied retrospectively or at least to their case, enabling them to claim the ITC for March 2019. Respondents' contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents regarding their contention against allowing the ITC.
Sections Cited
Section 16
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025:JHHC:10877-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 6752 of 2023 ----- M/s. Unity Infra Projects Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Unit At-Sunita Shree Residency, P.O.-Kusum Vihar, P.S. Saraikela, District-Dhanabd, in the State of Jharkhand-826003 represented through its Authorized representative Sri Sudhir Kumar Ray, aged about 34 years, son of Sri Vijay Kumar Ray, resident of At-Durga Mandir Rajauli, P.O. Berui, P.S. Baniyapur, District-Saran, in the State of Bihar (841403)
… … Petitioner Versus
The State of Jharkhand.
The Commissioner of State Taxes, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
The State Tax Officer, Urban Circle, Dhanbad, having his office at Commercial Tax Department, Court Compound, Opp. Patliputra Medical College & Hospital (PMCH), Randhir Verma Chowk, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Sadar, Dhanbad-826001 (Jharkhand). … … Respondents ------- CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kartik K Kurm
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 Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.