Manash Ghosh Vs Assistant Commissioner of Revenue (Calcutta High Court)
Summary: The Calcutta High Court allowed Manash Ghosh’s writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated 19 April 2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 for financial year 2018-19, which raised a demand of ₹1,18,35,089 by denying input tax credit on returns filed beyond the original statutory due date. The petitioner submitted that the GSTR-3B returns for April 2018 to March 2019 had been filed before 30 November 2021 and that the retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act regularised input tax credit for financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21 where the relevant return under Section 39 was filed up to that date. The petitioner argued that the benefit of the curative amendment introduced through the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 could not be denied merely because the adjudication order had already been passed. Reliance was placed on Hiranmoy Dutta Vs State of West Bengal, reported in [2025] 172 taxmann.com 750 (Calcutta), in which a Coordinate Bench held that input tax credit disallowed for delayed GSTR-3B returns stood regularised by the new cut-off under Section 16(5).
The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner’s case did not squarely fall within the inserted provision and that Section 16(5) could not reopen a concluded assessment. On examining the record, the High Court held that the petitioner had made out a case warranting interference. It found the amendment curative and retrospective from 1 July 2017 and held that a taxpayer whose relevant returns were filed by 30 November 2021 could not be denied its benefit. The ratio of Hiranmoy Dutta was found squarely applicable. Consequently, the Court quashed the order dated 19 April 2024 and directed the Joint Commissioner to re-adjudicate the matter within six weeks in light of Section 16(5), after verifying the dates on which the GSTR-3B returns were filed. The authorities were restrained from taking coercive steps until re-adjudication. As no affidavit had been called for, the allegations in the writ petition were deemed not admitted by the respondents.
