Case Law Details
Kuttukaran Antony Anto Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
Kerala High Court, in the case of Kuttukaran Antony Anto vs State Tax Officer, examined whether the petitioner, a taxpayer under the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017, could claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on capital goods sent directly for job work. The petitioner had received an assessment order under Section 73 for the 2018-19 financial year, partly due to delayed return filings in 2019. However, an amendment incorporating sub-clause (5) to Section 16 of the GST Act allowed for ITC claims on capital goods used in job work. The petitioner argued that their returns should be considered timely under this amendment, thereby making them eligible for the benefit.
On February 10, 2025, the High Court permitted the petitioner to submit an application claiming the benefit of Section 16(5). The petitioner submitted that their returns were filed within the permissible period and requested relief under the amended provision. The Court directed the assessing authority to evaluate the claim and issue a decision accordingly. Additionally, the Court ordered that the revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner be put on hold until a final decision is made. The first respondent was instructed to resolve the matter within 30 days, ensuring compliance with the amended GST provisions.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
Petitioner is a tax payer under the CGST/ SGST Acts, 2017 (for short, ‘the Act’). For the assessment year 20 18-19, petitioner was issued with an assessment order under Section 73 as per Ext.P4. Petitioner had filed its return for various months of 2019 belatedly. Subsequently, by virtue of an amendment effected, sub-clause (5) to Section 16 of the Act was incorporated. Petitioner contends that the returns filed by him can be treated as within time in view of the amendment and therefore the petitioner ought to be given the benefit.
2. On 10.02.2025, this Court had issued a direction giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application claiming the benefit of Section 16(5) of the Act. Since, it is now submitted that the returns were filed within the time and hence petitioner is entitled for the benefit by application of Section 16(5) of the Act, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the assessing authority to consider granting the benefit of Section 16(5) of the Act to the petitioner, if he is entitled to, in accordance with law.
3. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, regarding the claim of the petitioner for the benefit available under Section 16 (5) of the Act. Since the petitioner claims that they are entitled for the benefit of Section 16(5) of the Act, the first respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law and if the said provision is applicable, he shall pass appropriate orders giving such benefits. The orders as directed above, shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from today. Ext.P6 revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed by the first respondent as directed above. If the petitioner is given the benefit of amended provisions of Section 16(5) of the Act, necessarily consequences will follow.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Author Bio
