Case Summary
Case Title: GJK Shellex India Private Limited v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Court: High Court at Calcutta, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, Appellate Side
Petition No.: WPA 612 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 05 March 2025
Category of Dispute: Input Tax Credit (ITC) – Wrong availment and treatment under Section 73 vs. Section 74
Relevant Sections: Sections 16(2), 16(5), 73, 74, and 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017
Facts (Para 1–2)
The petitioner challenged an appellate order dated 25 November 2024 under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act concerning FY 2019–20. Initially, a show cause notice was issued under Section 74, culminating in an order dated 12 May 2021 holding wrongful availment of ITC. Upon appeal, the authority observed that while ITC was wrongly availed, there was no evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax. Accordingly, it treated the matter as falling under Section 73. However, it overlooked the mandatory consideration of Section 16(2) and Section 16(5), particularly with respect to the timely filing of returns within the extended due dates.
Questions (Para 2)
The issue before the Court was whether the appellate authority had correctly applied the law in treating the case under Section 73, while ignoring the statutory provisions under Section 16(2) and Section 16(5) concerning ITC eligibility and the extended cutoff for return filing.
Observations (Para 2–3)
The Court noted that the appellate authority did not adequately consider the provisions of Section 16(2) and 16(5). Specifically, the petitioner had filed returns for FY 2019–20 within the extended cutoff as provided under Section 16(5). The GSTR-2A records, placed before the Court, were also not properly examined. Hence, the appellate order suffered from non-application of mind to material aspects of law and facts.
Judgment (Para 3–5)
The Court remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for reconsideration, directing it to examine GSTR-2A and the applicability of Section 16(5) in light of returns filed within the extended date. Until a fresh order is passed, the impugned order will remain ineffective. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Cases Referred (with outcome)
| Case | Outcome |
|---|---|
| No external precedents were expressly referred in this order | — |
Between Fine Lines
This judgment clarifies that ITC disputes must be carefully examined in light of Section 16(5). Authorities cannot mechanically shift a case from Section 74 to Section 73 without analyzing the timely compliance of return filing and matching with GSTR-2A. For businesses, the ruling underscores the importance of return compliance within the statutory extensions to safeguard ITC entitlement.
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.”
 compliance and wrongly treated the case under Section 74 instead of Section 73.){kind=link}