Sumant Kumar Agarwal v. Commissioner of CGST & CX
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
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.
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 S.74 — Determination of tax not paid or short paid involving fraud or suppression.
Source documents
Similar rulings
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 revenue
Tvl. Power Lead Electricals v. Deputy State Tax Officer
Tvl. Power Lead Electricals filed W.P. No. 31815 of 2025 before the Madras High Court; decision 8 June 2026. A demand arose from differences between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B reflecting input tax credit. The assessee contended proceedings under Section 73 were time-barred because the department did not initiate action within the normal limitation. The revenue relied on Section 168A, which excluded certain periods during Covid-19 from limitation computation. The court held the exclusion applied and proceedings were not barred. The writ was dismissed; outcome in favour of revenue. Sections 16, 73, 74 and 168A frame limitation in mismatch cases. CAs should note extended timelines when advising on ITC reconciliation disputes. This summary is not legal advice. Assessees cannot assume Covid-era filing delays automatically extinguish mismatch-based demands without applying the statutory exclusion formula.
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; matter remanded
Meenakshi Collections v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Meenakshi Collections challenged input tax credit denial before the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 24897 of 2024, decided 8 June 2026. Supplier invoices were not reflected in GSTR-2A because of technical glitches on the GST portal, which departmental communications acknowledged. The assessee otherwise satisfied conditions under section 16, section 41, and Rule 36, and relied on Circular 183/15/2022-GST. Justice C. Saravanan held denial unjustified and ruled interest and penalty under sections 50 and 74 were not payable once entitlement was established. The confirming order was set aside and the matter remanded to allow credit in accordance with law. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand. Useful when 2A mismatches arise from system errors rather than assessee misconduct. Not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
Narayan Enterprise v. Union of India
Narayan Enterprise, trading in scrap batteries, challenged input tax credit denial before the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 2933 of 2026, decided 4 June 2026. The assessee purchased from registered suppliers, paid GST through banking channels, filed timely returns, and availed credit supported by invoices. Denial rested entirely on suppliers' failure to deposit tax, without proof of collusion or fraudulent procurement by Narayan Enterprise under sections 16, 50, 74, and 122 read with section 20 of the IGST Act. The Court set aside impugned orders and preserved the department's liberty to proceed against suppliers directly. Outcome favoured the assessee. Mirrors related scrap-trade decisions from the same bench emphasising documentary and banking compliance by purchasers. Intended for professional awareness; not legal advice.