Case Details: Ram Constructions Versus Union of India- (2025) 26 Centax 405 (Jhar.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ. & Deepak Roshan, J.
- Ms Nitin Kumar Pasari & Sidhi Jalan, Advs. for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I, Anil Kumar, ASGI & Amit Kumar, Sr. S.C. CGST for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a registered taxpayer under GST, was denied Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the financial year 2017-18 due to delayed filing of returns. Tax authorities imposed interest and penalties, prompting the petitioner to challenge Section 16(4) of the CGST Act and Rule 61(5) of the CGST Rules as arbitrary restrictions on ITC. The petitioner also contested the retrospective amendment introduced by Notification No. 49/2019, which classified GSTR-3B as a return under Section 39 from 01-07-2017, arguing that it interfered with vested rights. Having exhausted administrative remedies, the petitioner approached the Jharkhand High Court for relief.
CESTAT Held
The Jharkhand High Court held that Clause (5) of Section 16, inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, retrospectively extended the ITC claim period, allowing the petitioner to claim ITC for delayed returns of 2017-18. It ruled that the retrospective classification of GSTR-3B under Section 39 could not be used to deny ITC. The Court directed tax authorities to grant ITC and refund interest and penalties with 6% annual interest, emphasizing that procedural restrictions should not override substantive tax rights.
