Case Details: Carefil Technology vs. Superintendent of GST and Central Excise [2026] 186 taxmann.com 1010 (Madras)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- C. Saravanan, J.
-
S. Kabil Dev for the Petitioner.
-
G. Meganathan, Jr. Panel Counsel & S. Gurumoorthy, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was engaged in matters relating to availment of input tax credit (ITC) under GST and was issued a show cause notice in GST DRC-01 proposing denial of ITC on the ground of belated availment beyond the statutory time-limit under Section 16 of the CGST Act. The petitioner did not file a reply despite reminders, and the jurisdictional officer under CGST proceeded to pass an order confirming the proposal and treating the ITC as time-barred solely on the basis of limitation. The confirmation was challenged on the ground that a retrospective legislative amendment had subsequently altered the legal position governing the time-limit for availment of ITC. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the sole basis of the impugned order was the alleged delay in availment of ITC under the limitation clause of Section 16 of the CGST Act, which stood materially impacted by retrospective statutory intervention through the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 with effect from 01-07-2017. It was observed that the retrospective insertion of the relevant sub-sections cured the defect underlying the show cause notice and consequently removed the legal foundation on which the denial of ITC was sustained. It further held that since the amendment operated from inception of the GST regime, the confirmation of demand solely on the ground of limitation could not survive in law. Accordingly, it set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the jurisdictional officer uander CGST for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law.
The post Retrospective CGST Amendment Revives Time-Barred ITC Claim | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
