Wild Planet Pvt Ltd Vs Superintendent (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court considered a challenge to an order under Section 73 of the CGST Act denying the petitioner’s Input Tax Credit for failure to submit returns within the period prescribed under Section 16(4). The petitioner relied on Section 16(5), contending that the returns had been submitted within its prescribed cut-off date and that the ITC was therefore a statutory entitlement.
The respondents submitted that the impugned order dated 18.06.2024 could not be rectified because the period specified in the CBIC circular had expired on 30.06.2025. The Court held that merely because the petitioner had not submitted a rectification application within that period, the statutory benefit under Section 16(5), introduced retrospectively, could not be denied. The Court noted from the show cause notice that the petitioner had submitted the returns for January to March 2020 on 25.12.2020 and 29.12.2020, within the period stipulated under Section 16(5). Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Assessing Authority to reconsider the matter and grant ITC under Section 16(5), if the petitioner was otherwise entitled.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, by which, the Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner was declined, on the reason that, the petitioner failed to submit the returns for the months of January to March 2010, within the time stipulated under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. The challenge is raised by the petitioner mainly relying upon Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, that provides that, in case the petitioner had submitted the returns within the cut off date contemplated therein i.e, on or before 31.11.2021, the petitioner would be entitled to claim the Input Tax Credit.
2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that Ext.P1 is an order passed as early as on 18.06.2024 and the time for submitting a rectification application as per the Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, is already expired on 30.06.2025. Therefore the petitioner cannot claim the said benefit.
3. However, after carefully going through the records, I am of the view that, merely because of the reason that the petitioner did not submit a rectification application within the time specified above, his claim need not be rejected. This is particularly because, as far as the right to claim the Input Tax Credit under Section 16(5) of the Act is concerned, it is a statutory entitlement, and it is a provision introduced retrospectively. Therefore, merely because, there occurred some delay on the part of the petitioner, that statutory benefit, which the petitioner is otherwise entitled, need not be declined. In this case, it is discernible from P3 show cause notice itself that, the petitioner had submitted the returns for the month of January to March 2020 on 25th December 2020 and 29th December 2020. Thus, the same was submitted within the time stipulated under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act. In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P1, with a direction to the Assessing Authority to reconsider the matter and to grant the Input Tax Credit in the light of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled.
