Jain Cement Udyog v. Union of India
In favour of the revenue
The ruling in brief
Jain Cement Udyog filed W.P.(C) No. 13622 of 2026 before the Delhi High Court, decided 17 September 2026, concerning input tax credit denied where supplier registrations were cancelled before invoice dates and suppliers had not paid tax. The assessee also challenged constitutional validity of section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), relying on Rule 37A verification norms. The Court noted the Supreme Court upheld section 16(2)(c), requiring recipients to establish supplier tax deposit, and rejected the constitutional challenge. On maintainability, writ jurisdiction was declined and the assessee was relegated to statutory appeal to contest fact-specific eligibility. Outcome favoured the revenue on validity and procedure. Chartered accountants should strengthen pre-availment supplier due diligence and maintain contemporaneous audit trails for invoices. Not legal advice.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.16 — Eligibility and conditions for taking input tax credit.
- CGST Rules R.37A — Rule 37A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
- Constitution Art.14 — Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
- Constitution Art.19 — Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the assessee
Advance Engineering Farms and Equipments v. State of Assam
Advance Engineering Farms and Equipments challenged input tax credit denial before the Gauhati High Court, decided 16 July 2026. The assessee paid GST to registered sellers and held valid tax invoices, yet credit was denied because sellers failed to file returns or deposit tax. Justice Devashis Baruah held denial unlawful under section 16 read with section 39 and Rules 36 and 37A. Remedy for supplier default targets the supplier, not a bona fide purchaser without collusion. Rectification demand treating availed credit as excess was set aside. Decision aligns with purchaser-protection trends in supplier-default litigation. Outcome favoured the assessee. This editorial summary is intended for CAs and is not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment and current notifications before advising clients on compliance steps.
In favour of the assessee
Metal Syndicate v. Union of India
Metal Syndicate filed WP(C) No. 2960 of 2026 before the Gauhati High Court, decided 5 June 2026, against denial of input tax credit on purchases from registered suppliers. The assessee paid GST through banking channels, filed required returns, and availed credit in good faith, but the revenue denied benefit solely because suppliers failed to remit tax. Under section 16 and Rule 37A, Justice Kardak Ete set aside impugned orders and held the department's remedy is against defaulting suppliers unless material indicates collusion or lack of bona fides by the recipient. Liberty was reserved to reopen if such evidence later surfaced. Outcome favoured the assessee. Aligns with sibling Gauhati judgments separating supplier default from recipient liability in bona fide trade. This summary is 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; 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
Rajib Agarwala v. Union of India
Rajib Agarwala approached the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 2722 of 2024; judgment dated 7 August 2026. He had filed his GST return for financial year 2018–19 on 23 October 2019 and availed input tax credit on purchases reflected therein. The tax authority later denied the credit, treating the return as belated under the pre-amendment reading of Section 16(4). The issue was whether ITC remained available after retrospective insertion of Section 16(5), which allowed credit where returns for a period were filed on or before 30 November 2021. The court held the petitioner’s filing fell within that extended window, so denial was unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside; outcome in favour of the assessee. Sections 16 and 39 framed the dispute. This editorial summary is not legal advice.