Direct Tax
Consulting
ESG Advisory
Indirect Tax
Growth Advisory
Internal Audit
BFSI Audit
Industry Audit
Valuation
RBI Services
SEBI Services
IRDA Registration
AML Advisory
IBC Services
Recovery of Shares
NBFC Compliance
IRDA Compliance
Finance & Accounts
Payroll Compliance Services
HR Outsourcing
LPO
Fractional CFO
General Legal
Corporate Law
Debt Recovery
Select Your Location
One of the key features of The GST Act is the introduction of Input tax credit (ITC). It was introduced in the Act to avoid cascading taxes, i.e., safeguard “tax on tax”.
ITC was introduced to reduce tax liability as it makes a sale by claiming the credit depending on how much GST was paid on the business purchases.
The eligibility to claim ITC is an important factor under the GST Act; section 16 of the GST Act explains the concept of ITC and eligibility to claim it.
These conditions are as follows-
The term ‘businesses under the CGST Act has been defined expansively to include any “trade, commerce, manufacture, etc., and any activity or transaction in connection with or incidental or ancillary” to the same.
The sale of provisions to workmen employed in the factory where textiles were being manufactured was incidental to the business of manufacture of textiles, and such sales fell within the definition of the term ‘businesses under the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act.
The test for an activity to be construed as incidental to the business, such work as is sought to be treated as incidental should not be extraneous or contrary to the purposes of the establishment. Still, it need not be integral or essential to it either. Applying this test, the canteen maintained by the cinema owner was held to be incidental to the business of exhibiting films.
The petitioner was carrying its business in General Insurance and was selling used goods received against the settlement of the claim. The activity of selling used goods was held to be ancillary to its main business.
The petitioner was engaged in the banking business and, in certain cases, would recover dues from the defaulters by auctioning the assets of the defaulters. The activity of selling assets hypothecated to the bank was held to be incidental to its business.
Fig. 2. Depicting documents required to claim ITC
Rule 36(1) of the GST Act illustrates the docua registered person needs person, including an input service distributor, to claim ITC.
These are –
Fig.3. Depicting the procedure to apply for ITC
The petitions involving ITC revolve around the following questions-
Balancing the centre-state relations was one of the prior conditions before the formation of the GST Act to maintain the same dual GST was introduced, i.e., CGST Central Goods and Services Act for the centre and SGST State Goods and Services Act for the states, making it a subject matter of both resulting in equal division and distribution of the taxes.
One such subject matter within both is that of input tax credit, which is governed by the CGST Act and the local GST Acts of each state; the petitions involving the matters related to input tax credit are generally related to the contentions asking if ITC is an absolute and vested right, the constitutional validity of GST Act if ITC is time-barred and the effect of retrospective registration on ITC cases.
A vested right is an unconditional right given to a person, and it cannot be taken away from them without their consent; the question of whether or not ITC is a vested right has been raised many times, and the view of the judiciary clarifying the same is explained with the help of following judicial precedents.
FACTS OF THE CASE-
Contentions by the petitioner
Contentions by the respondent
JUDGMENT-
The CGST and each SGST Act have included the time limit for filing the Input tax credit in their scheme, making it time-barred. Still, because tax return is a matter of right, at the time of the establishment of the Act, the time limit was the end of the current financial year or September of the succeeding year; this criterion is changed by the notification by the GST Council on February 2022 which extended it to November 30 of the succeeding year or the end of the current financial year. It is complicated in general to understand the time limit, resulting in confusion and delay in filing of input tax credit. Following judicial precedents raises the issue of whether or not the input tax credit is time-barred.
This case raised questions about the statutory scheme of Karnataka value-added tax and the condition where the input tax credit is time-barred, to which the Supreme Court of India illustrated in favour of the designed scheme under the CGST Act and the SGST Acts of other states and said that the concessions granted under these schemes are to benefit the beneficiary but by the criteria stated in the statute and its scheme if the criteria of the scheme mention certain time limit for filing the return, that time limit should be adhered by the taxpayer to enjoy the benefits of concession provided under the Act.
In this case, the petitioner failed to produce the specific documents necessary to take advantage of the concessional rate of tax under section 8(1) of the central sales tax (Karnataka) rules, 1957, to which the court said that furnishing original Form C within a particular time limit, to claim the concessional rate is a mandatory requirement under the Act and without the specified documents, dealers cannot claim the benefits.
In this case, the Hon’ble Court emphasized the literal interpretation of the laws related to taxes. The court stated that it is upon the will of the legislature to decide how much tax credit is to be levied. The court stated that the conditions laid down by the scheme make the scheme related to input tax credit time-barred under the CGST Act, and the SGST Acts of states will be the criteria for deciding input tax credits.
A taxpayer who is no longer registered under the GST Act loses his rights to pay/collect GST, claim an input tax credit, and file a return.
Section 29 of the CGST Act gives the adjudicating authority power to cancel a supplier’s registration from a retrospective date, i.e., from any date of the past. Still, this power cannot be exercised arbitrarily.
The chain of input tax credit originates from a taxpayer and his inward and outward supply of goods and services and GST paid during such transaction; this chain is dependent upon the GST registration of the supplier and the taxpayer; generally, the cancellation of any one entity involved in the chain makes it difficult for the other to claim input tax credit. The judiciary tried to resolve this conflict, and the following cases explain their views regarding the same.
The issue raised before the court in this case was whether the purchasing dealers could be held liable for non-payment of tax by the selling dealers on account of retrospective cancellation of their registration certificates.
The court stated that the rights of assesses /petitioners could not be quashed because of the retrospective cancellation of the registration certificates issued to the selling dealer. The petitioner paid the tax based on the invoice and claimed benefit accordingly. His credit should be reversed by the scheme provided in the statute.
This case was filed by respondents who were dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, purchased goods from an enterprise situated in Maharashtra and then resold the goods and claimed certain benefits of input tax credit.
The sales tax officer disallowed this claim of the respondents on the grounds that the registration certificate of the enterprise they purchased goods from was cancelled retrospectively. The claim of the respondents was declined, and a penalty was imposed.
The Supreme Court, in this case, ordered in favour of the assessee and stated that the purchasing dealer would rely upon the certificate of registration of the selling dealer, and whatever the effect of retrospective cancellation is upon the selling dealer cannot affect the claim of the purchasing dealer.
It is intrinsic for a legislature to make laws easy, but usually, the interpretative nature of Indian laws makes it difficult for the people to deduce their true meaning. The GST Act, up to a certain level, is contrasting in nature, and the rules and schemes laid down by the Act are transparent, easy to understand and make indirect tax uncomplicated. Yet certain subject matters like input tax credits require the judiciary’s interference to lay down the clear framework of the scheme imbibed in the Act. The judiciary deals with all the issues concerning input tax credits. It makes the return availed under ITC matter of concession, not a legal right vested in a person by the Indian constitution.
Experiencing the loss of a loved one is one of the deepest emotional hardships a person can fac...
On January 16, 2025, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) released the list of Non-Banking Financial...
Over the decades, the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) has been a key pillar in the portf...
The Reserve Bank of India, on April 11, 2025, posted a Press Release No. 2025-2026/96 on their...
Hong Kong is widely recognized as a leading global business hub, known for its free-market econ...
Are you human?: 2 + 7 =
Easy Payment Options Available No Spam. No Sharing. 100% Confidentiality
GST registration certificate is issued in the form GST REG-06. It is a digitally signed system generated Certificat...
25 May, 2023
GST registration is mandatory for entities with annual turnover of more than 40 lakh rupees. This threshold limit m...
15 Jul, 2021