Commissioner CGST & CX v. Power Tech Global (P.) Ltd
See the decision
The ruling in brief
The GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (Appeal Nos. APL 62, 74 and 75 (KLK) of 2026, 5 August 2026), considered whether MEIS duty scrips should be excluded from the aggregate value of exempt supplies for common credit reversal under Section 17 CGST and Rule 43. For periods before Notification No. 14 of 2022, which amended Rule 43 to exclude duty credit scrip value, the Tribunal treated the amendment as prospective. ITC on concessional schemes could not be claimed retrospectively as a vested right, and Section 74 featured in related demand context. Outcome is nuanced (“see the decision”) on period-wise treatment. CAs allocating common credit should apply pre- and post-notification rules separately and not assume retroactive exclusion of scrip values. This note is published for Chartered Universe GST case-law research and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full order, confirm the decision date and citation, and assess whether later statutory changes affect reliance before advising clients or filing appeals.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.17 — Section 17 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
- CGST S.164 — Section 164 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
- CGST S.74 — Determination of tax not paid or short paid involving fraud or suppression.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the revenue
RMZ Infinity (Chennai) (P) Ltd v. Joint Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Chennai
RMZ Infinity (Chennai) (P) Ltd filed W.P. No. 14847 of 2025 before the Madras High Court; order dated 8 June 2026. The assessee claimed input tax credit on works contracts and construction expenditure for immovable property that was rented out. The Joint Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Chennai denied the credit and the writ challenged that denial. The central question was whether Section 17(5)(d) barred ITC on construction of immovable property used in the business. The court held that renting a building does not bring the asset within the narrow “plant or machinery” exception, so credit on such construction is blocked. The writ was dismissed and the denial upheld—outcome in favour of revenue. Sections 16, 17 and 74 were cited. Useful for CAs advising real-estate and leasing entities on blocked credits. Not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
Sumant Kumar Agarwal v. Commissioner of CGST & CX
Sumant Kumar Agarwal filed before the Calcutta High Court; order dated 10 September 2026. Revenue had reversed input tax credit citing delayed GST return filing. After retrospective insertion of Sections 16(5) and 16(6) from 1 July 2017, the assessee filed a rectification application and returns within the extended period contemplated by the amendment. There was no substantive dispute that filing met the relaxed timeline. Lower appellate authorities nevertheless rejected relief, ignoring both the retrospective extension and the pending rectification. The High Court termed that approach perverse and set aside the orders, directing appropriate relief in line with Section 16. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Section 74 featured in the underlying demand context. This self-contained summary is not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
Esnp Property Builder and Developers (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer (ST)
ESNP Property Builder and Developers (P.) Ltd. filed writ petitions before the Madras High Court, decided 28 August 2026, contesting denial of input tax credit on inputs used to construct property intended for lease or license. The revenue invoked blocked credit for immovable property under section 17. The Court noted Chief Commissioner v. Safari Retreats on construction for own business use and held orders ignored that principle under sections 54 and 79 and Rule 142B. Impugned orders were set aside for fresh evaluation applying Safari Retreats to lease-intent facts. Outcome favoured the assessee. Relevant for builders structuring commercial premises and ITC claims. Not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment and current notifications before advising clients on compliance steps.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Cart Infralog Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner
Cart Infralog Ltd. challenged input tax credit recovery before the Calcutta High Court in WPA No. 16556 of 2025, decided 27 August 2026. The assessee demonstrated valid tax invoices, physical receipt of goods, and payment to suppliers for the transactions in dispute. Recovery was nevertheless pursued because suppliers failed to deposit GST and corresponding entries did not appear in GSTR-2A. Justice Smita Das De held that, absent collusion or fraud by the recipient, coercive recovery from the purchaser was without jurisdiction under sections 16, 73, 74, and 79 of the CGST Act; the department should first proceed against defaulting suppliers under section 79. The impugned recovery was quashed and the matter remanded for lawful action. Outcome favoured the assessee. This editorial summary is for chartered accountants and is not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Vasanta Resorts and Spa (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
Vasanta Resorts and Spa (P.) Ltd. filed CWP No. 12966 of 2026 before the Himachal Pradesh High Court; order 31 July 2026. The dispute concerned input tax credit blocked or denied following retrospective amendment to Section 17(5)(d), which restricts credit on construction of immovable property. The assessee filed a belated appeal; the Appellate Authority dismissed it as time-barred and declined condonation beyond the statutory limit in Section 107. The High Court set aside the dismissal on delay grounds alone and remanded the appeal for adjudication on merits of the Section 17(5)(d) challenge. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. CAs should separate limitation issues from substantive ITC blocking under Section 17. Not legal advice. Merits will now include whether hospitality construction qualifies for any exception under the amended Section 17(5)(d) language.