GSTR-9 Must Be Considered for ITC Claims Not Reflected in GSTR-3B: Calcutta HC [Read Order]
The HC ruled that input tax credit (ITC) claims disclosed in GSTR-9 must be considered, even if not reflected in GSTR-3B, when GSTR-3 was unavailable
![GSTR-9 Must Be Considered for ITC Claims Not Reflected in GSTR-3B: Calcutta HC [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/GSTR-9-ITC-ITC-Claims-Not-Reflected-in-GSTR-3B-GSTR-3B-taxscan.jpg "GSTR-9 Must Be Considered for ITC Claims Not Reflected in GSTR-3B: Calcutta HC [Read Order]")
In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court held that GSTR-9 annual returns must be considered for input tax credit (ITC) claims, even when such credit is not reflected in the monthly return filed in GSTR-3B. The case arose from a petition filed by Pioneer Cooperative Car Parking Servicing and Construction Society Ltd., which challenged a summary order issued on 5.6.2023 by the...
In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court held that GSTR-9 annual returns must be considered for input tax credit (ITC) claims, even when such credit is not reflected in the monthly return filed in GSTR-3B.
The case arose from a petition filed by Pioneer Cooperative Car Parking Servicing and Construction Society Ltd., which challenged a summary order issued on 5.6.2023 by the adjudicating authority under Section 73(9) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. The order had denied a substantial ITC claim to the petitioner, citing that the credit was not reflected in their GSTR-3B for FY 2017–18.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that GSTR-3 was never notified during that period, leaving taxpayers to rely on GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 for return filings. In its reconciliation statement, the petitioner detailed a huge unclaimed ITC of Rs. 27.65 lakh each under CGST and SGST, which had not been captured in the GSTR-3B but was reported in the GSTR-9 return.
Worried About SME IPO Pitfalls? Gain Clarity with This Advanced Course! Register Now
The adjudicating authority rejected the claim, stating that ITC not reflected in GSTR-2A or claimed in GSTR-3B could not be allowed under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. During the appeal, the petitioner also submitted that Rs. 6,20,322 had been voluntarily paid as tax, a claim the authority had earlier dismissed due to lack of documentation on the GST portal. The petitioner offered to furnish proof of payment during re-adjudication.
Read More: [BREAKING] Income Tax Return: CBDT notifies Revised ITR Forms 1 and 4 [Read Notification]
The two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice T. S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya observed that GSTR-9 serves a critical function in reconciling the values declared in periodic returns with audited financial statements. The bench held that the annual return cannot be ignored when determining the legitimacy of ITC claims, especially when the prescribed form for monthly returns, GSTR-3, was not operational during the relevant period.
The court referenced earlier rulings, including Ankit Kumar Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Sri Shanmuga Hardwares Electricals v. State Tax Officer. The court ruled that ITC claims disclosed in GSTR-9 should be duly considered, and that outright denial based on the absence of data in GSTR-3B would render the annual return process meaningless.
The court set aside the adjudication order and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue for fresh adjudication, directing that the GSTR-9 return and related documentation be given due consideration. The writ petition was allowed.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
