 of CGST Act in the case of Diamond Timber Industries.){kind=link}
Case Details:
Case Title: M/s. Diamond Timber Industries v. Superintendent of CGST & CX, Range I, Singur & Ors.
Court Name: High Court at Calcutta
Petition Number: WPA 27169 of 2024
Category of Dispute: Input Tax Credit (ITC)
Date of Judgement: 19.05.2025
Relevant Sections: Section 16(5), Section 39, Section 73 of CGST/WBGST Act, 2017
🧾 Facts of the Case
[Para 1]
The petitioner, M/s. Diamond Timber Industries, challenged an adjudication order dated 17.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act. The order disallowed the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed by the petitioner for the period from August 2019 to March 2020. The ground for disallowance was the delayed filing of GSTR-3B returns beyond the due date as mandated under Section 39.
❓Question(s) in Consideration
[Para 2]
Whether the petitioner could still be eligible for ITC in view of the insertion of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, despite the late filing of GSTR-3B returns?
🔍 Observations of the Court
[Para 2]
The Court noted that the actual date of filing returns for the tax period in question (August 2019 to March 2020) was not later than 14th January 2021. It prima facie appeared that the petitioner was covered under the newly inserted Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, which allowed certain flexibilities regarding ITC availment timelines.
🏛️ Judgement of the Court
[Para 3–4]
The High Court set aside the adjudication order dated 17.08.2024. The matter was remanded back to the proper officer for reconsideration, specifically instructing them to evaluate the petitioner’s eligibility for ITC in light of the insertion of Section 16(5). The writ petition was thus disposed of.
🔍 Between Fine Lines
-
The court recognised that the late filing of returns may still be condonable under amended Section 16(5).
-
ITC denial solely on technical delay in return filing, without evaluating Section 16(5), is improper.
-
The case stresses reevaluation by proper officer in line with current statutory provisions.
-
Petitioner’s rights under amended provisions must be properly considered.
-
Remand is not confirmation of eligibility but an opportunity for proper scrutiny.
📚 Summary of Referred Cases
(No cases were referred or cited in this judgement.)
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”