Case Details: Hi-Tech Security Systems vs. Assistant State Tax Officer - [2026] 186 taxmann.com 1118 (Kerala)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.
-
Aji V. Dev, Smt. Vandana Bhat T.V., S. Sajeevan & Jash C. James, Advs. for the Petitioner.
-
Arun Ajay Shankar, Adv. GP for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a registered taxpayer under the CGST Act and the Kerala GST Act, claimed input tax credit (ITC). The Assessing Officer denied the ITC on the ground that certain monthly returns pertaining to the said periods had not been furnished within the statutory timelines prescribed under Section 16 of the CGST Act and the Kerala GST Act. The petitioner contended that it remained eligible for ITC in view of the overriding provision contained in Section 16(5), as all the relevant returns had been furnished within the extended cut-off date contemplated therein. It was submitted that the returns were filed. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, being an overriding provision, governed the eligibility of ITC for the periods in question and superseded the significance of the earlier statutory timelines once the returns were furnished within the extended cut-off prescribed therein. The Court observed that all returns relating to the relevant periods had been filed within the time contemplated under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act and, therefore, the Petitioner satisfied the statutory requirement for availing ITC. The Court further held that the denial of ITC solely on the basis of non-filing of returns within the original timelines under Section 16 of the CGST Act could not be sustained after compliance with the extended timeline under Section 16(5). Accordingly, the impugned orders denying ITC were quashed and the writ petition was allowed.
The post HC Allows ITC Claim Filed Within Extended Time Under Section 16(5) appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
