Tvl.Raja Computer vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.Raja Computer, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 31.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tirunelveli. The impugned order rejected the petitioner's input tax credit (ITC) claim. The reason for rejection was the belated filing of GSTR-3B returns for the assessment period 2017-2018. The petitioner sought to quash this order and requested a fresh consideration of the matter after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The respondent is the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, representing the revenue.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's input tax credit claim solely on the ground of belated filing of GSTR-3B returns for the assessment period 2017-2018 cannot be sustained. The Court observed that the dates of filing of the relevant GSTR-3B returns, as mentioned in the show cause notice, all fell within the extended period for filing GSTR-3B returns under Section 16(5) of the applicable GST enactments. Therefore, the rejection of ITC on this ground was found to be erroneous. The Court set aside the impugned order. The ratio decidendi is that if GSTR-3B returns are filed within the extended period prescribed under Section 16(5) of the GST enactments, the input tax credit cannot be denied solely on the basis of belated filing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's input tax credit claim solely on the ground of belated filing of GSTR-3B returns for the assessment period 2017-2018 is sustainable in law? The petitioner argued that the impugned order is illegal, erroneous on facts, and violates the principles of natural justice. They sought to quash the order and have the matter reconsidered after a personal hearing. The petitioner contended that the dates of filing of the GSTR-3B returns, as recorded in the show cause notice, fell within the extended period for filing such returns under Section 16(5) of the applicable GST enactments. The revenue, represented by the learned Government Advocate (Taxes), accepted notice but no specific arguments were recorded on their behalf regarding the merits of the petitioner's claim or the validity of the impugned order.
Sections Cited
Section 16(5), Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05-10-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY {CNR: HCMD011408912026} Case QR WMP (MD) Nos.21765 and 21766 of 2026
Tvl.Raja Computer, 52/10 Getwell Anjaneyar Hospital Road Tirunelveli Junction Tirunelveli - 627001 Petitioner(s) Vs
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, O/o.The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Tirunelveli Junction Assessment Circle Tirunelveli Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): Mr.R. Sureshkumar For Respondent(s): Ms.P.Sudarkodi Nachiyar, GA (Taxes) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of impugned order under Section 73 dated 31.12.2023 having GSTIN No. 33AAOFR1748Q1ZI/2017-2018 passed by the respondent and quash the same as illegal, erroneous on facts and violation of principles of natural justice consequently directing to consider the matter 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of personal hearing and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may
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.