In a recent case regarding a challenge against the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under section 16 (2)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act , 2017, the High Court of Kerala allowed the benefit of Circular and set aside the orders to the extent it denies input tax credit on account of the provisions.
Arafa Plywood And Veneers , the petitioner has been denied input tax credit in terms of the provisions contained in Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax/State Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017 (CGST/SGST Acts). The petitioner stated that if the petitioner is given the benefit of the Circulars referred to in paragraph No.101 of the judgment of this Court in M.Trade Links v. Union of India [2024] , the petitioner will be entitled to input tax credit, which has now been denied to it by orders.
Become PF & ESIC Pro: Basic to Advance Course – Enroll Today
The Government Pleader submitted that orders were passed on 24-04-2024 and the petitioner did not even file this writ petition within the period available for filing an appeal. It was submitted that a belated challenge has now been raised and such challenge should not be entertained.
Counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel appeared for respondent No.5 and the Government Pleader and having regard to the directions issued by the Court in M.Trade Links (supra), view that one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to prove its claim in terms of the Circulars referred to in paragraph No.101 of the judgment of this Court in M.Trade Links (Supra) before the competent authority.
Become PF & ESIC Pro: Basic to Advance Course – Enroll Today
The single bench of Justice Gopinath P. allowed the writ petition by setting aside orders to the extent it denies input tax credit on account of the provisions contained in Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/SGST Acts and directing that the claim of the petitioner shall be considered in terms of the Circulars referred to in paragraph No.101 of the judgment of this Court in M.Trade Links (Supra)after affording an opportunity of hearing to an authorised representative of the petitioner. The petitioner is represented by Reghunathan V.G., P.J.Anilkumar and K.A.Abdul Nistar. The respondent was represented by Jasmin M M and V Girishkumar.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
