Tvl. Narumanam Spices v. Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise
See the decision
The ruling in brief
Tvl. Narumanam Spices filed W.P.(MD) No. 13982 of 2026 before the Madras High Court; order 1 June 2026. The Superintendent passed an ex parte assessment alleging excess input tax credit from mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. Before the order the assessee had paid the differential ITC and explained its failure to respond to notices as a lapse by a part-time accountant. The court found that even where discrepancies exist, ex parte adjudication without effective opportunity to explain and produce documents offends fairness. The assessment was set aside with direction for fresh consideration after a proper hearing. Outcome favours procedural relief for the assessee. Sections 16 and 73 applied. Not legal advice. Fresh adjudication must consider whether the GSTR-2A mismatch was explainable and whether pre-payment of differential credit should adjust the demand.
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.73 — Determination of tax not paid or short paid (non-fraud cases).
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.
See the decision
Bhardwaj Construction v. Union of India
M/s. Bhardwaj Construction filed CWJC No. 4763 of 2026 before the Patna High Court, decided 6 July 2026, against a section 73 BGST order disallowing input tax credit as beyond section 16(4) time limits, with recovery enforced years later. The assessee invoked retrospective sections 16(5) and 16(6) via Finance (2) Act 2024 and Circular No. 237/31/2024-GST paragraph 3.5, permitting rectification where no appeal was filed against the demand order. The Court declined writ quashing but granted liberty to file section 148 rectification within one month, with hearing and reasoned order within three months. Writ disposed accordingly. Appropriate route for time-bar ITC disputes post-circular. Not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment and current notifications before advising clients on compliance steps.
In favour of the assessee
Santu Das v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & C. EX, Chandannagore Division
Santu Das filed proceedings before the Calcutta High Court (decision 1 July 2026) against the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Chandannagore Division. Input tax credit for 2018–19 was denied on the sole ground that returns were filed after the original deadline in Section 16(4). Parliament later amended the CGST Act to insert Section 16(5), retrospectively relaxing the time limit so that ITC could be taken where returns were filed by 30 November 2021. The petitioner’s returns met that extended cut-off. The court held the department could not ignore the amendment and reject credit purely for delay. The impugned order was set aside; outcome in favour of the assessee. Sections 16, 73 and Rule 142 were engaged. This summary is for professional reference only and is not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd. v. Union of India
A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd. challenged overlapping demands for the same tax period before the Calcutta High Court in WPA No. 22309 of 2024, decided 25 June 2026. The assessee had filed GSTR-3B by 30 November 2021. Retrospective insertion of section 16(5) through Finance legislation extended and regularized input tax credit availment timelines for specified cases from 1 July 2017. The Court held a subsequent section 73 demand was unsustainable given that benefit and quashed the later order, remanding the original order-in-original for re-adjudication with verified return dates under sections 16 and 73. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand. Chartered accountants should map client facts to post-2024 section 16 amendments. Not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment and current notifications before advising clients on compliance steps.
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.