Input Tax Credit case laws
Look up GST High Court, GSTAT, and advance-ruling decisions by topic — with a complete summary for each matter and the source judgment PDF when you need the full text.
31 rulings
TVL. Alpha Tech v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
In favour of the assessee
TVL. Alpha Tech filed WP No. 20859 of 2026 before the Madras High Court; judgment 11 June 2026 on input tax credit. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer denied ITC because GSTR-3B for the disputed periods was filed late. The sole issue before the court was whether delay alone could sustain denial after the law was amended to insert Section 16(5), extending the date for filing returns and claiming credit to 30 November 2021 for eligible periods. The petitioner filed within that window. The court held rejection based exclusively on pre-amendment delay was untenable and set aside the impugned order. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Sections 16 and 39 govern return filing and credit entitlement. Chartered accountants should map client filing dates against Section 16(5) before accepting ITC denials. Not legal advice.
Tvl. Power Lead Electricals v. Deputy State Tax Officer
In favour of the revenue
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.
Tvl. Daisyrani Eng. Constructions v. Superintendent of GST and Central Excise
In favour of the assessee
Tvl. Daisyrani Eng. Constructions challenged ITC denial in WP No. 19198 of 2026 before the Madras High Court; decision 8 June 2026. The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise had rejected credit by applying the limitation in Section 16(4) as it stood before Parliament added Section 16(5), which statutorily relaxed time limits for returns and rectification from 1 July 2017. Once the amendment took effect, the legal basis for denial on old limitation grounds ceased to apply to eligible filers. The court set aside the order and restored the assessee’s ability to claim credit subject to other conditions in Section 16. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Sections 16 and 39 were central. This editorial summary is not legal advice.
RMZ Infinity (Chennai) (P) Ltd v. Joint Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Chennai
In favour of the revenue
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.
Meenakshi Collections v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
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.
V.V. Iron Steel Company (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise
In favour of the revenue
V.V. Iron Steel Company (P.) Ltd., a TMT steel bar manufacturer, filed W.P. (MD) No. 10232 of 2026 before the Madras High Court; judgment 5 June 2026. Credits in its ledger were blocked under CGST Rule 86A after investigation revealed that premises of four suppliers were vacant, lacked infrastructure, showed no vehicle movement for alleged deliveries, and suffered documentation anomalies indicative of fake transactions. The assessee sought mandamus to unblock credit. The court held adequate material existed to exercise Rule 86A power and refused to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Outcome: in favour of revenue. Rules 86 and 86A govern blocking and utilisation of credit. The decision illustrates when courts defer to fraud-based blocks. Editorial summary only; not legal advice. The judgment contrasts with natural-justice challenges where blocks are imposed without evidence of bogus billing chains.
Metal Syndicate v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
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.
Akal Trade Links v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Akal Trade Links filed WP No. 20601 of 2023 before the Madras High Court, decided 5 June 2026, against denial of input tax credit on purchases from a registered supplier who filed returns and paid tax. Invoices listed vehicle numbers, but the department denied credit for lack of lorry receipts and weighment slips without examining supply genuineness under section 16, section 155, and Rule 36. The Court set aside the confirmation order and remanded for holistic reconsideration, allowing the assessee to prove movement and receipt. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand. Shows limits of mechanical denial based on transport documentation alone. This summary is not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment and current notifications before advising clients on compliance steps.
Narayan Enterprise v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
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.
Gurucharan Kangsa Banik v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
Gurucharan Kangsa Banik, trading in scrap batteries, challenged denial of input tax credit before the Gauhati High Court, decided 3 June 2026. He purchased from registered suppliers, paid price plus GST through banking channels, maintained proper invoices, and filed returns reflecting availed credit. The revenue denied credit solely because suppliers did not remit tax to the exchequer, without alleging collusion or sham transactions by the purchaser. Justice Kardak Ete held that under section 16 of the CGST Act the remedy for supplier default lies against the supplier; consequential interest and penalty under sections 50, 74, and 122 could not stand. Impugned demand and penalty orders were set aside. Outcome favoured the assessee. Consistent Gauhati jurisprudence on supplier non-payment. Not legal advice.
Tvl. Narumanam Spices v. Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise
See the decision
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.