Vasanta Resorts and Spa (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
The ruling in brief
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.
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.107 — Appeals to the Appellate Authority.
Source documents
Similar rulings
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
Shakti Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax
Shakti Enterprises filed Writ Petition No. 1913 of 2026 (T-RES) before the Karnataka High Court; judgment 10 August 2026. On transition to GST the petitioner carried forward valid CENVAT credit into its electronic credit ledger under Section 140 and later debited that ledger to satisfy the pre-deposit required to pursue an appeal under Section 107. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal, treating the pre-deposit as invalid because it was not paid in cash, relying on CBIC administrative instructions. The High Court held the statute does not restrict pre-deposit to cash when credit in the Section 49 ledger is lawfully available; circulars cannot override statutory credit rights or Rule 142 procedures. The Tribunal’s ground of rejection was quashed. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Not legal advice.
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.
See the decision
Commissioner CGST & CX v. Power Tech Global (P.) Ltd
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.
In favour of the revenue
Jain Cement Udyog v. Union of India
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.