Case Details: Malabar Plaza Residency & Restaurant vs. Assistant State Tax Officer (2026) 39 Centax 298 (Ker.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.
- S/Shri Lijo Varghese, K.N. Sreekumaran & P.J.Anilkumar, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- Smt. Reshmitha R Chandran, SR GP, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner had filed returns claiming input tax credit (ITC), which were rejected by the department on the ground that the returns had been submitted beyond the statutory time limit contemplated under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. The petitioner challenged the impugned order, contending that by virtue of the amendment introducing Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, returns submitted within the cut-off permitted under the said provision would be eligible for the grant of ITC. It was submitted that the petitioner had filed the returns within the cut-off contemplated under Section 16(5) and therefore denial of ITC was not justified. Reliance was placed on the statutory benefit available under the said provision, overriding the earlier limitation contained in Section 16(4). The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that even if there were lapses on the part of the petitioner in filing the returns claiming ITC, such lapses could not be a ground to deny the relief sought. It observed that the benefit available under Section 16(5) constituted a statutory right where returns had been filed within the cut off prescribed therein. The court noted that the filing of returns was evident from the impugned order itself and satisfied the requirement laid down under Section 16(5). It further observed that Section 16(5) begins with a non obstante clause overriding Section 16(4), thereby rendering the earlier limitation irrelevant in such cases. Accordingly, the petitioner was held entitled to the benefit under Section 16(5), subject to eligibility otherwise.
