Vinod Udaipuri Vs Union of India (Jharkhand High Court)
The Jharkhand High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by Vinod Udaipuri Vs Union of India, which challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, and sought to quash an order disallowing Input Tax Credit (ITC).
The Core Issue
The petitioner sought to challenge the disallowance of Rs. 30,29,010 in ITC for the period July 2018 to March 2019, imposed along with interest and an equal penalty. The disallowance was based on the petitioner’s alleged violation of §16(4), which sets a time limit for availing ITC. The petitioner also challenged the constitutional validity of §16(4) and the retrospective validation of GSTR-3B as a return under Rule 61(5).
Impact of the Finance Act, 2024
During the proceedings, counsel for both the petitioner and the Union of India submitted that the matter required a fresh adjudication due to the insertion of a new provision: Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, via Section 118 of the Finance Act, 2024.
This new sub-section was made retrospectively effective from July 1, 2017. Crucially, §16(5) provided a non-obstante clause stating: “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), in respect of an invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both pertaining to the Financial Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the registered person shall be entitled to take input tax credit in any return under section 39 which is filed upto the thirtieth day of November, 2021.”
