Exploring GST Section 16(4) with Court Rulings on ITC

Section 16(4) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) is the attractive provision permitting assessees to avail the ITC lessening the cascading effect that is in the VAT regime which came with the influential catches and setbacks levied in the form of the conditions to be fulfilled transferring the vested ITC nature to a conditional right.

Latest Update

  • As well as interim relief, the Supreme Court admitted the SLPs and issued notices to the respondents in the case of Shanti Motors v. Union of India & Ors. Read More

The 2017 Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act represents a crucial law set to transform the Indian economy. Praised for streamlining the tax system and fostering economic unity, it has faced challenges necessitating focused attention for the success of the GST framework.

Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 has posed a significant challenge for businesses, leading to substantial burdens. The lack of compliance with this provision, often due to various reasons, has resulted in the issuance of significant demand notices under Section 16(4) in conjunction with Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The ability to avail input tax credit (ITC) stands as a pivotal aspect of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) system. However, the process of claiming this benefit isn’t straightforward, as specific conditions and limitations govern its eligibility.

This piece delves into the intricate relationship between Section 16 of the CGST Act and Article 300A of the Indian Constitution, examining whether ITC becomes an assured right at different stages of compliance.

Fill Form for GST Cloud Software

    The Problem: Pre- or Post-GST Compliance Vesting

    Section 16(1) empowers registered taxpayers to claim ITC for eligible purchases utilized in their businesses. However, Section 16(2) imposes mandatory conditions; failure to comply renders the credit ineligible. This prompts the question: does ITC become an assured right only after fulfilling Section 16(2), or does it arise earlier upon complying with Section 16(1), thus making it a conditional rather than an assured right?

    GST Section 16(2) Overrides Section 16(4) Compliance Deadlines

    Supporters of this argument highlight the “non-obstante” clause in Section 16(2), which supersedes other provisions within the section. They contend that Section 16(4), which specifies a timeframe for ITC claims, becomes redundant in light of the precedence set by Section 16(2).

    While Section 16(2) undoubtedly holds significance, considering other provisions remains crucial. For example, Section 16(3) limits ITC claims on assets for which depreciation has been claimed under the Income Tax Act. This further constrains the scope of enablement provided by Section 16(1).

    Can a GST ITC be Vested or Conditional?

    Showing the ITC a vested right only after section 16(2) compliance ignores the provisions restricted such as section 16(3). A deeper comprehension acknowledges that the validity and eventual realization of ITC rely on diverse conditions present at different stages.


    CGST Act, Section 16(4)- Compilation of Notable Court Decisions

    Below are some notable court decisions related to GST section 16(4) including constitutional validity, ITC avail-ament, time limit, cash payments, etc.

    Constitutional Validity of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act:

    GST Section 16(4) is Constitutionally Accurate

    The Chhattisgarh High Court has confirmed the constitutionality of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. This provision imposes limits on Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims, emphasizing that Articles 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Indian Constitution are upheld, ensuring the preservation of fundamental rights and legal consistency.

    Case TitleJain Brothers vs Union of India
    Citation(W.P.(T)No.191/2022)
    Date11.12.2023
    For Petitioner:Mr. Palash Soni, Advocate
    For Respondent No.1 / Union of IndiaMr Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General of India and Ms Anmol Sharma, Advocate.
    For Respondent No.2 / State: –Mr. Amrito Das, Additional Advocate General
    For Respondents No.3 to 5: –Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha and Ms. Shrut Pramar, Advocates.
    Chhattisgarh High CourtRead Order

    Patna High Court Maintains the Constitutionality of GST Section 16(4) Limiting ITC Claim

    The Patna High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) in the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, which sets constraints on Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims.

    Additionally, it was underscored that these limitations weren’t arbitrary or in breach of a dealer’s entitlements as per Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.

    Conclusively, the Patna High Court affirmed that Section 16(4) of the CGST Act aligns with the Constitution, without infringing upon Articles 19(1)(g) and Article 300A. The bench stressed its consistency with all fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

    The court explained that ITC is a concession granted by the CGST Act, not a right, and its conditions should be strictly fulfilled.

    Case TitleGobinda Construction vs Union of India
    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No9108 of 2021
    Date14.09.2023
    Patna High CourtRead Order

    ITC Claims and Belated GST Returns

    Andhra Pradesh HC: Acceptance of Late Returns with Late Fee Not a Reason to Clear Taxpayer from Time Limit for ITC Claim u/s 16(4)

    The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that even if the tax department accepts late returns and associated late fees from the taxpayer, it doesn’t validate a claim for Input Tax Credit (ITC) beyond the stipulated time limit mentioned in Section 16(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (APGST) Act and Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.

    The judges stressed that tardy return acceptance doesn’t excuse the petitioner from complying with Section 16(4) requirements, which fall well within the set legislative boundaries for ITC claims. Consequently, the court upheld the validity of the assessment order issued by the authorities. Interest in belated ITC

    Case TitleTirumala Konda Plywoods vs The Assistant Commissioner
    Case No.W.P.No.24235 of 2022
    Date18.07.2023
    Counsel for petitioner:Sri Rama Krishna Kumar Potturi
    Counsel for Respondents:Learned Advocate General for Respondent
    Nos.1 and 2 and The Deputy Solicitor General
    Andhra Pradesh HCRead Order

    Interest on Belated GST Input Tax Credit

    Madras HC: The Interest Must be Imposed on the Late GST Cash Payments Except ITC

    The Madras High Court, while granting the Writ Petition, has determined that the GST Department can impose interest solely on the cash portion of belatedly paid taxes and not on the available Input Tax Credit (ITC).

    This decision came from the bench led by Dr Justice Anita Sumanth in the case of M/s. Refex Industries Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise.

    The Court highlighted that Section 50(1) of the CGST Act specifies that interest applies solely to the cash component of the tax payment, a provision introduced from 01.08.2019.

    This amendment aimed to rectify an inconsistency in the pre-existing provision and should be interpreted as a clarifying measure with retrospective effect.

    Case TitleM/s. Refex Industries Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner
    CitationWrit Petition Nos.23360 and 23361 of 2019
    & WMP Nos.23106 and 23108 of 2019
    Date06.01.2020
    Counsel For AppellantMr.R.Anish Kumar
    Counsel For RespondentMr.Thirumalaisamy
    Madras High CourtRead Order

    GST Return Compliance Overridden by ITC Claims

    Overriding Effect of Provision of ITC over Time Limit of Filing Returns: Calcutta HC Maintains Constitutional Validity of GST Section 16(4)

    The Calcutta High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, emphasizing the precedence of time limit conditions for filing Goods and Services Tax Returns over the legal entitlement to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC).

    It followed by the Calcutta High Court Division Bench that, “Very recently, the Hon” ble Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had considered an identical case as that of the case on hand, wherein a pari materia provision under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax, 2017 namely Section 16(4) of the Act was considered in a challenge to its validity on the ground that it violates Article 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India; whether the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) of the APGST, CGST Act, 2017 would prevail Section 16(4) of the APGST/CGST Act, 2017.

    It was documented that, “the argument advanced before us by the learned Advocate for the appellant were identical to that of the arguments which were placed by the petitioners/assessee in the said case and the same was rejected, in our view rightly on the ground that Section 16(2) prescribes, the eligibility criteria which is mandatory and in the absence of fulfilment of the eligibility criteria the dealer will not be entitled to claim ITC.”

    The Calcutta High Court for the aforementioned reasons discovered no reason to allow the relief sought by the applicant in the writ petition.

    Case TitleM/s. BBA Infrastructure Limited Vs Senior Joint Commissioner
    CitationMAT NO. 1099 OF 2023, (I.A. NO. CAN 1 OF 2023)
    Date13.12.2023
    Counsel For AppellantMr. Vinay Shraff, Advocate, Ms. Priya Sarah Paul, Advocate.
    For the StateMr. T.M. Siddiqui, Ld. Additional Government Pleader, Mr. T. Chakraborty, Advocate, Mr. S. Sanyal, Advocate.
    Calcutta High CourtRead Order

    ITC Rejection and Belated e-filing of GSTR-3B Form

    Late Filing of GSTR-3B Due to Cash Crunch: Madras HC Remands GST ITC Claim for Fresh Review

    A Single Bench of the Madras High Court has sent back the Assessee’s Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim due to financial constraints that caused the Assessee to submit GSTR-3B and GSTR-2 forms belatedly and in offline modes, resulting in the rejection of the claim for late filing.

    The crucial observations highlighted that if the GSTN (Goods and Services Tax Network) allowed filing without tax payment or incomplete GSTR-3B submissions, dealers could rightfully claim the input tax credit. However, as this option wasn’t available in the GSTN network, dealers were unable to claim ITC based on delayed GSTR-3B filings.

    The court acknowledged the genuine practical difficulty faced by the petitioner and urged the authorities, while recognizing the GST Council as the suitable body, to take corrective measures. Pending the resolution, the bench ruled in favour of the assessee, instructing authorities to permit dealers to file returns manually.

    Case TitleTvl.Kavin HP Gas Gramin Vitrak vs The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
    CitationW.P.(MD).Nos.7173 and 7174 of 2023 and
    W.M.P.(MD)Nos.6764 and 6765 of 2023
    Date24.11.2023
    For PetitionerMr.Raja Karthikeyan
    For RespondentsMr. A.K.Manikkam Special Government Pleader
    Madras HCRead Order
    Narendra Kumar

    Narendra Kumar is an experienced technical content writer with expertise in writing and crafting long-form content on subjects such as taxation, business, marketing, and technology. With a passion for deep research and putting his unique ideas into his work, Naren consistently delivers high-quality content that captivates readers. At SAG Infotech, he writes news articles on topics related to GST, finance, and taxation.

    View Comments

    • i agree with the opinion of one of the readers, sec 16 (4) should be made more flexible and practicle .....just by deciding certain dates of claiming ITC does not solve some practicle and concrete facts...
      1) since the seller has already paid tax and the buyer is unable to claim ITC... the same GST is lying with GOVT , plus the end use is paying GST on the same....? is it not double taxation
      2) i feel as long as GOVT is getting revenue...the cycle must not be stopped by using dates to show the importance of due dates and financial disclipline......bcoz we all know how GOVT authorities misuse and respect due dates....! but bcoz our associations are not challenging the same the GOVT is adamant ....!
      Real fun will be to know the percentage of such un-claimed ITC in the total GST collection and the litigations against the same....

    • Dear Sir ,if 16(4) is not amended in this case than 80 percent of business will be closed ..myself will shut down my business.its a draconian clause ..My case ..My whole family was infected with COVID 19 during the month of Aug 2020 ..the municiple authorities quarantine my home cum office from 20 Aug 2020 to 20 oct 2020 I have a letter from municiple authorities about the time period ..it was during covid 19 national disaster management act was enforced ..under NDMA section 51 says that if I breach the law quarantine orders I will be punished for two years again breach of Epidemic act 1897 will be invoked against me ..Govt is playing with the tax payers and people who work ..Filing 3 b return is just a formality ..again the extension of time for audit and orders is illegal ..section 168 A states that there should be a reason like national disaster ,war etc …but during second extension no reason is given ..hence this notification is also illegal ..organisation have proposed for amnesty scheme to GST council for 25 percent of tax ..but my view is why and why ? Atleast for the period till 2022 they should have given us a liberty ..Elections are on …just file a appeal and during next elections force the govt to support. Businesses community or else shift to other country as this law will not be viable to work .

      • WHAT IS THE UPDATE ON YOUR CASE...I HAVE RECIEVED SIMILAR ORDER TODAY.I HAVE ALREADY CLOSED DOWN MY GST LONG TIME AGO DURING COVID.THESE GUYS KEEP SENDING LLATE FEES N NOW THIS DEMAND

    • Input Tax is a right to the dealer to get back his Tax amount since it is paid in advance to the Governament. But under section 16(4) it is burdening the GST Dealers, Do to Servers issue and new to understand GST Act dealers are faced some issue in the Bigining of the Act implimentation. But do to Departmental mistake dealers should not be punished by disallowing ITC. Governament should take property action immediately because this problem is becoming more serious up to bank attachment.

    Recent Posts

    No GST Returns Will Be Accepted If Filed More Than 3 Years Past Their Due Date

    An advisory has been released by the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) which notifies…

    14 hours ago

    Delhi HC: Two Judgment Orders Against One SCN Cannot Be Accepted for the Same Period

    It was cited by the Delhi HC that the two adjudication orders against one SCN…

    16 hours ago

    CBDT Allows Electronic Filing of Forms 3CEDA and 3C-O Via Notification No. 5/2024

    The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in an update for the taxpayers via the…

    17 hours ago

    October 2024 Records the 2nd Highest GST Collection, Driven by Domestic Sales

    In October, Gross GST collection surged to 9% to Rs 1.87 lakh crore, the second…

    19 hours ago

    UP AAR: GST Will Be Levied on the Installation of Electricity Distribution Systems by DISCOMs

    Goods and Services Tax (GST) is to get paid on the procurement of materials and…

    2 days ago

    Bombay HC Quashes Rejection Order for Voluntary GST Cancellation Due to Lack of Stated Reasons

    The Bombay High Court carried that as the revocation orders for the registration cancellation on…

    3 days ago