ITC Relief for FY 2018-19 via Retrospective Statutory Amendments

By | February 6, 2026

ITC Relief for FY 2018-19 via Retrospective Statutory Amendments


1. The Core Dispute: Belated Filing and Mismatches

The petitioner received a Show Cause Notice (DRC-01) and a subsequent demand order for FY 2018-19. The demand was based on two primary grounds:

  • Section 16(4) Violation: ITC was claimed in a belatedly filed GSTR-3B return.

  • ITC Mismatch: A discrepancy was noted between the ITC details in GSTR-2A (supplier data) and GSTR-3B (taxpayer’s claim).

Because the petitioner failed to reply to the initial notice, a final demand order was passed. The petitioner then sought a Rectification of the Order.


2. Legal Breakthrough: Insertion of Sections 16(5) and 16(6)

The High Court noted that while the case was pending, the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 introduced major amendments with retrospective effect from July 1, 2017.

I. Relief from Section 16(4) Deadlines

The newly inserted Section 16(5) acts as a “non-obstante” clause. It states that for invoices pertaining to FY 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21, a registered person is entitled to take ITC in any return filed up to November 30, 2021.

II. Settlement of the Limitation Issue

Since the statutory intervention explicitly regularized ITC taken after the original deadline (provided it was filed by Nov 30, 2021), the court held that the issue of “belated availing of ITC” is now settled in favor of the assessee.


3. The Ruling: Remand for ITC Mismatch Verification

While the limitation issue was resolved by law, the factual dispute regarding the GSTR-2A vs. GSTR-3B mismatch remained.

  • Remand to Original Authority: The court set aside the demand order and remitted the matter back to the adjudicating authority.

  • Opportunity of Hearing: The assessee was directed to file a fresh reply to the Show Cause Notice, treating the now-quashed order as an “addendum” to the original notice.

  • Substantiation: The petitioner must provide documents (invoices, proof of payment, etc.) to prove the genuineness of the mismatched ITC.


Key Takeaways for Taxpayers

  • Retroactive Protection: If your ITC for FY 2018-19 was denied solely because you filed your return late, you are now protected by Section 16(5), provided that return was filed before Nov 30, 2021.

  • Rectification vs. Appeal: As per CBIC Circular No. 237/31/2024/GST, you can file a Rectification Application on the GST portal to fix orders that disallowed ITC under Section 16(4).

  • Mismatch Documentation: For mismatches, always keep a reconciliation statement and communication from suppliers ready to prove that the tax was indeed paid to the government.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Rubicon Associates
v.
State Tax Officer*
C. Saravanan, J.
WP No. 50209 of 2025
WMP NOS. 56173 & 56174 OF 2025
JANUARY  6, 2026
Ms. G. Vardini Karthik for the Petitioner. Ms. Amirtha Poonkodi Dinakaran, Govt. Adv. for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Ms.Amirtha Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the Respondent.
2. This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent.
3. The Petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order dated 29.02.2024 in DRC – 07 passed for the financial year 2018-2019 and order dated 29.10.2025, whereby the application filed on 06.09.2025 for rectification of the impugned order dated 29.02.2024 came to be rejected. The impugned order dated 29.02.2024 was preceded by a show cause notice in DRC – 01, to which the Petitioner failed to reply and thus, suffered the impugned order dated 29.02.2024.
4. By the impugned order, the demand that has been confirmed against the petitioner is as follows :-
Sl. No.TaxInterestPenaltyTotal
1.20,90,886.0019,74,579.002,09,087.0042,74,552.00
2.20,90,886.0019,74,579.002,09,087.0042,74,552.00
Total41,81,772.0039,49,158.004,18,174.0085,49,104.00

 

5. A reading of the impugned order indicates that part of the demand to an extent of Rs.32,24,256/- is on account of belated filing of Input Tax Credit under Sec.16(4) of the respective GST Enactments. The balance amount of tax for a sum of Rs.9,57,476/- pertains to mismatch in details between GSTR – 2A and GSTR – 3B filed by the petitioner.
6. As far as belated availing of Input Tax Credit in accordance with Section 16(4) of the respective GST Enactments is concerned, the issue is settled in favour of the assessee by way of a statutory intervention by virtue of the insertion of Section 16(5) and 16(6) to the respective GST Enactments inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2024 (15 of 2024) dated 16.08.2024, vide SO 4253(E) with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017, which would require re-adjudication.
7. As far as mismatch in details of Input Tax Credit in GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B is concerned, the matter has to be remitted back to the original authority for consideration after hearing the petitioner.
8. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders are quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondent subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of disputed tax confirmed on account of mismatch in details between GSTR -2A and GSTR – 3B in cash from the Petitioner’s Electronic Cash Register within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. Within such time, the Petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 29.12.2023 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated 29.02.2024 as an addendum to the show cause notice dated 29.12.2023.
10. In case the Petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the Respondent shall proceed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months of such reply/pre-deposit. Subject to the Petitioner complying with the above stipulations, the attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner shall also stand automatically vacated.
11. It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax as ordered above and the Petitioner not being in arrears of any other amount barring the amount demanded under the impugned Order.
12. In case the Petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the Respondent is at liberty to proceed against the Petitioner to recover the tax in accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today.
13. Needless to state, before passing any such order, the Respondent shall give due notice to the Petitioner.
14. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

 

Category: GST

About CA Satbir Singh

Chartered Accountant having 12+ years of Experience in Taxation , Finance and GST related matters and can be reached at Email : Taxheal@gmail.com