High Court upholds the Constitutional validity of time limit provided under Section 16(4) of CGST Act for claiming ITC

Thirumalakonda Plywoods versus The Assistant Commissioner – State Tax Anantapur [Andhra Pradesh High Court]

The petitioner prays for writ of mandamus declaring:

• Whether by virtue of imposition of time limit for claiming ITC, Section 16(4) of the CGST Act violates Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India?
• Whether Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, would prevail over section 16(4) of CGST Act, and thereby if the conditions laid down in Section 16(2) of the CGST Act are fulfilled, the time limit prescribed under section 16(4) of the CGST Act for claiming ITC will pale into insignificance?
• Whether the acceptance of Form GSTR-3B returns of March 2020 filed on November 27, 2020 by the Petitioner with a late fee of INR 10,000 will exonerate the delay in claiming the ITC beyond the period specified under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act?

Held: Observed that, Section 16(2) of the CGST Act has no overriding effect on Section 16(4) of the CGST Act as both are not contradictory with each other, they will operate independently.

Opined that, mere acceptance of Form GSTR-3B returns with late fee will not exonerate the delay in claiming ITC beyond the period specified under section 16(4) of the CGST Act.

Further, the time limit prescribed for claiming ITC under section 16(4) of the CGST Act is not violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India.