Andhra Pradesh HC Allows ITC Claims Filed Within Extended Timeframe under Section 16(4)

Andhra Pradesh HC Allows ITC Claims Filed Within Extended Timeframe under Section 16(4)

The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the availment of ITC filed within the extended deadline of October 25, 2020, under Section 16(4) of the GST Act.

The key dispute revolves around the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and making an addition of the same to Kameswari Agencies’ income, along with the imposition of interest and penalties for the financial year 2019-2020, under the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act 2017. The petitioner claimed that these demands were illegal, arbitrary, and unfair because they were imposed without granting a fair chance of hearing, indicating an explicit contravention of the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner company had claimed ITC for September 2019 and March 2020 in late October 2020. However, the claim was rejected by the tax authorities on grounds of filing after the due date of October 25, 2020, under Section 16(4) of the GST Act. During the hearing before the High Court, the petitioner claimed that Section 16(5) of the GST Act provides an extended time limit for claiming ITC for certain financial years, including tax period 2019-2020, and as per the provisions of the said section, the claim was admissible to be made up to November 30, 2021.

The petitioner had stated, “a claim for Input tax credit for the period 2019-2020. The said period is covered under Section 16(5), extracted above. Therefore, the petitioner had an extended time, up to 30.11.2021, to file the claims. As these claims were filed in the last week of October 2020, the said claims of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground of delayed filing.”

In the present case, the ITC was claimed within the extended deadline; hence, rejection of the same was not justified and was incorrect as per the law. When the court examined the facts of the case, it endorsed the arguments presented by the petitioner. The extended deadline flagged by the petitioner was indeed under the scope of Section 16(5). Therefore, rejecting the claims based on delay was not justified.

As a result, the Court set aside the earlier impugned orders issued by the tax authorities and held in favour of the petitioner.