Umen Chandra Roy v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
The ruling in brief
Umen Chandra Roy succeeded in part before the Calcutta High Court (17 August 2026, WPA No. 1360 of 2026) where a rectification application seeking correction of input tax credit in returns was rejected because it was filed beyond a six-month period stated in departmental circulars, even though Section 16(5) of the CGST Act does not prescribe a limitation for availing ITC subject to other conditions. The petitioner invoked Article 226, arguing executive instructions under Section 168 cannot curtailed substantive statutory rights. The Court held rejection based solely on circular delay was unsustainable and remanded the rectification application for consideration on merits, leaving scope to reject only if delay was shown to be unexplained or exceptional on facts. Outcome: assessee-favourable remand under Article 226. Relevant for ITC rectification beyond internal departmental timelines. 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.39 — Furnishing of returns by registered persons.
- CGST S.16 — Eligibility and conditions for taking input tax credit.
- CGST S.168 — Power to issue instructions or directions by the Board.
- Constitution Art.226 — High Court writ jurisdiction for enforcement of rights and other purposes.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the assessee
Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise v. Akshaya Building Solution
In a writ appeal before the Madras High Court (18 June 2026, W.A. No. 3577 of 2024), Akshaya Building Solution sought rectification of clerical and arithmetical errors in GSTR-1 for early GST periods so that outward supply details and input tax credit would flow correctly to its customers’ ledgers. The Assistant Commissioner resisted on grounds of delay and because the portal did not permit online amendment for those periods. Under Section 39 and Rule 59, the appellate bench held rectification of genuine clerical and arithmetical mistakes could not be denied merely on delay or transient portal limitations when the error frustrated the statutory chain of ITC. Corrected returns or manual rectification as permitted by law had to be allowed. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Important for legacy return correction and ITC pass-through in construction supplies. Not legal advice.
In favour of the revenue
State of Karnataka v. Sudhanva Engineers and Builders
The Karnataka High Court Division Bench (10 June 2026, Writ Appeal No. 275 of 2025) allowed the State’s appeal against a Single Judge order that had directed relaxed penalty, interest or limitation for Sudhanva Engineers and Builders, a works contractor, to file or amend GST returns based on a reimbursement clause in its government contract. The contractor argued the employer would reimburse GST consequences, but the revenue contended courts cannot soften statutory fiscal obligations by contract. Under Sections 39, 37, 50, 128 and 168A, contractual reimbursement cannot override mandatory GST statutory liability for returns, interest and penalty; nor can writ courts direct relaxation of statutory limitation or condonation in the absence of valid statutory power. Outcome: in favour of the revenue—the impugned assessee-favourable relief was unsustainable. Not legal advice.
See the decision
Chandan Kumar Giri v. State of West Bengal
Chandan Kumar Giri filed writ before the Calcutta High Court (8 September 2026, WPA No. 23778 of 2026) after his GST portal access was blocked, preventing filing of GSTR-1, amid registration-related anomalies following a field inspection and ongoing proceedings against his registration. The Court did not finally adjudicate allegations of bogus registration or tax evasion on writ. Instead it directed the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation rebutting allegations with documents, and remanded the matter for administrative verification and personal hearing. Portal access was to be restored if, after hearing, the authorities found the assessee bona fide, under Sections 37, 146 and Rule 59. Outcome: remanded for administrative decision—the headnote outcome is see the decision. Procedural roadmap when returns are blocked pending verification. 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.
In favour of the assessee
H.R. Constructions v. Superintendent of Central Tax
H.R. Constructions filed Writ Petition No. 12234 of 2021 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, decided 6 August 2026, against reversal of input tax credit for financial year 2018-19. Credit was availed in GSTR-3B filed on 20 December 2019 but initially rejected for exceeding the 20 October 2019 deadline under section 16(4) of the CGST Act. Retrospective section 16(5), read with sections 39 and 20 of the IGST Act, extended the permissible availment window to 30 November 2021. The Division Bench held the dealer's claim timely after amendment and set aside the reversal order. Outcome favoured the assessee. Important for legacy FY 2018-19 ITC disputes following Finance Act changes. Chartered accountants should verify GSTR-3B dates against amended limits. Not legal advice.