GST LogoGST Press

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs Principal Commissioner

Date: January 20, 2026

Court: High Court
Bench: Jharkhand
Type: Writ Petition
Judge(s)/Member(s): RAJESH SHANKAR
Download

Subject Matter

ITC Time Limit Re-evaluation Required Post-Statutory Amendment and CBIC Circular

Input Tax Credit

Summary

The High Court has set aside an Order-in-Appeal related to Input Tax Credit (ITC) time limits, remitting the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. This decision is based on the subsequent insertion of Section 16(5) into the CGST Act, 2017, and the issuance of CBIC Circular No. 237/31/2024/GST.

Summary of Facts and Dispute:
  1. Impugned Action: The Order-in-Appeal No. 200/CGST/JSR/2023 dated 29.12.2023 was passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Cex, Ranchi, allowing an appeal against an Order-in-Original No. 21/Superintendent/2022 dated 12.10.2022. The appellate order was based on the premise that the amendment to Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 via Section 100 of the Finance Act, 2022, as notified by Notification No. 18/2022-Central Tax dated 28.09.2022, was not applicable.
  2. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and Section 300-A of the Constitution of India, and that Section 16(2) should prevail. They argued that if conditions under Section 16(2) are met, the time limit under Section 16(4) for claiming ITC has no significance. The petitioner claimed to have rightly availed ITC for Oct 2018 to Mar 2019 on 24.10.2019/25.10.2029, asserting that no mandate existed under Section 16(4) for availing ITC in GSTR 3B within the specified time limit, and delays in filing returns are subject only to late fees under Section 47.
  3. Core Question of Law: Does the subsequent insertion of Section 16(5) into the CGST Act, 2017, and the issuance of CBIC Circular No. 237/31/2024/GST, necessitate a reconsideration of the time limit for availing Input Tax Credit, even if an appeal had been decided prior to these changes?
Key Legal Issues & Findings:
Impact of Subsequent Legislative Amendments on ITC Availability

The Court, drawing parallels from Vinod Udaipuri vs. Union of India & Others

, recognized the material change in law subsequent to the impugned order-in-appeal, thereby necessitating a fresh examination of the matter. *

Amendment to Section 16:

Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017, has been amended by inserting sub-section (5). This new provision allows registered persons to take Input Tax Credit for Financial Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21 in any return under Section 39 filed up to November 30, 2021, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4). *

CBIC Clarification:

The CBIC has issued Circular No. 237/31/2024/GST dated 15.10.2024, providing clarifications regarding the implementation of sub-sections (5) and (6) in Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017, which directly impacts the present dispute concerning ITC availability within prescribed time limits. *

Precedent from Co-ordinate Bench: A co-ordinate Bench, in a similar context, had set aside an order-in-original and remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the implications of Section 16(5) insertion, which this Court adopted as reasoning.

Ruling:
  1. Outcome: The Order-in-Appeal No. 200/CGST/JSR/2023 dated 29.12.2023 is quashed and set aside.
  2. Directions: The matter is remitted to the appellate authority to decide the revenue's appeal afresh, specifically considering the impact of the insertion of Section 16(5) in the CGST Act, 2017, and CBIC Circular No. 237/31/2024/GST. The appellate authority must endeavour to dispose of the appeal within four months from the date of appearance of the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority on 05.02.2026 at 11:00 AM.
  3. Liberty: All contentions of the parties are left open to be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law and on their own merits.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner, by instituting this writ petition, seeks the following substantive reliefs:

“a) For a declaration that the Section 16(4) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, is violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and Section 300-A of Constitution of India and Section 16(2) of the said Act, 2017 would prevail over Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 and thereby if the conditions laid down in Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 are fulfilled, the time limit prescribed under Section 16(4) of the APGST / CGST Act, 2017 for claiming ITC shall have no significance.

b) For a declaration that the Petitioner has rightly availed the ITC for the period October, 2018 to March, 2019 on 24.10.2019/25.10.2029, as there is no mandate under Section 16(4) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 for availing ITC in the GSTR 3B within the time limit specified therein and due date of filing return u/s 39 of the said Act for the month of September for the year following the financial year to which it relates has never notified and further delay in filing of return is subject to late fees in terms of Section 47 of the Act and therefore the Petitioner cannot be penalized again for sole reason of delay in filing of return or any other form.

c) For quashing and setting aside the Order-in-Appeal No. 200/CGST/JSR/2023 dated 29.12.2023 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Cex, Ranchi, whereby the appeal filed by the Respondent No. 2 in pursuance of Order-in-Review cum Authorization No. 05/Review/GST/R.CKP/2022-23 dated 31.03.2023 against the Order-in-Original No. 21/Superintendent/2022 dated 12.10.2022, has been allowed on frivolous ground that amendment or substitution of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 vide Section 100 of the Finance Act, 2022, as notified by Notification No. 18/2022-Central Tax dated 28.09.2022 is not applicable.”

3. At this stage, there is no question of going into the issue of alleged unconstitutionality of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 because subsequent to passing of the order in appeal dated 29.12.2023, Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 has been amended by inserting sub-section (5) therein, which reads as follows:

“(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub­section (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 2020­21, 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.”

4. Further, the CBIC vide Circular No. 237/31/2024/GST dated 15.10.2024 has also issued a clarification regarding implementation of provisions of sub-sections (5) & (6) in Section 16 of CGST Act, 2017, which might impact the present matter.

5. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Udaipuri vs. Union of India & Others in P. (T) No. 5267 of 2023 has taken cognizance of the subsequent amendment and based upon the same, set aside the order in original impugned in the said writ petition and remitted the matter to the appropriate authority to pass fresh order after considering the implication and impact of insertion of Section 16(5) in the CGST Act, 2017.

6. Therefore, by adopting the reasoning in Vinod Udaipuri (supra) and further upon taking cognizance of insertion of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 and CBIC Circular dated 15.10.2024, we quash and set aside the order in appeal dated 29.12.2023 and remit the matter to the appellate authority for deciding the revenues appeal afresh and in accordance with law after considering the impact of insertion of Section 16(5) in the CGST Act, 2017 and CBIC Circular dated 15.10.2024.

7. The appellate authority must endeavour to dispose of the appeal within four months from the date of appearance of the parties before it and filing of an authenticated copy of this order.

8. The parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority on 05.02.2026 at 11.00 AM and file an authenticated copy of this order.

9. The appellate authority may thereafter indicate an appropriate date on which the parties shall be heard and the matter shall be disposed of.

10. All the contentions of the parties are however left open to be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law and on their own merits.

11. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms without any order for costs.