Disposed¶39

Saurabh Agarwalla v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Apr 2026WP(C)/1733/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court; WP(C)/1733/2026; Anjan Moni Kalita; CGST Act 2017 Section 16(4) time limit for ITC; insertion of Section 16(5) and 16(6) extending ITC availment to 30.11.2021 for FY 2017-18 to 2020-21; Input Tax Credit; return under Section 39; Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice 20.10.2023; Order-in-Original 07.02.2024 set aside; Dibrugarh CGST Superintendent; excess utilized amount Rs. 10,214; interest Rs. 553; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,214/- (excess utilized amount) and Rs. 553/- (interest on the case amount) within 30 days from receipt of the certified copy of the order; Order-in-Original dated 07.02.2024 set aside. ¶39

Saurabh Agarwalla Vs Union of India and 3 Ors. — GST and Indirect Tax | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who availed ITC of Rs. 2,38,928/- in FY 2018-19 beyond the time limit prescribed by Section 16(4) of the CGST Act and against whom a demand was confirmed vide Order-in-Original dated 07.02.2024, is entitled to avail the benefit of ITC for the relevant period in view of the amendment inserting sub-sections (5) and (6) in Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017.

¶34

Court's answer

In view of the amendment to Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 (insertion of sub-sections (5) and (6)), the challenge made in the present proceedings before this Court is no longer required to be addressed.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Considering the amendments, the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of ITC for the relevant period.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court, WP(C)/1733/2026 (decided 06-04-2026, Anjan Moni Kalita, J.): The petitioner challenged a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 20.10.2023 issued by respondent No. 4 (Superintendent, CGST, Dibrugarh Division) alleging that ITC of Rs. 2,38,928/- availed in FY 2018-19 violated the time limit in Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017; the Order-in-Original dated 07.02.2024 confirmed a demand of Rs. 2,49,142/- with interest of Rs. 553/- and penalty of Rs. 24,914/-. After sub-sections (5) and (6) were inserted in Section 16 (entitling registered persons to take ITC for invoices/debit notes of FYs 2017-18 to 2020-21 in returns under Section 39 filed up to 30.11.2021), the Court held that the challenge in the proceedings was no longer required to be addressed and that the petitioner was entitled to the ITC benefit for the relevant period. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,214/- (excess utilized amount) and Rs. 553/- (interest on the case amount) within 30 days, and the Order-in-Original dated 07.02.2024 was set aside.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010061162026

2026:GAU-AS:5016

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/1733/2026

¶6

SAURABH AGARWALLA

¶7

S/O- LATE PARAMESHWAR AGARWALLA, R/O- JSB UDAYAN, K.P. ROAD, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ROOM NO. 66A, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX MILAN NAGAR LANE-F P.O. C.R. BUILDING DIBRUGARH-786003.

¶11

3:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX MILAN NAGAR LANE-F P.O. C.R. BUILDING DIBRUGARH-786003. 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DIBRUGARH DIVISION C.R. BUILDING DIBRUGARH-786003 ASSA

¶12

Page No.# 2/5

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R S MISHRA, MS B SARMA,MS. M DEY

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, GST

¶15

BEFORE

¶16

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 06-04-2026

¶19

Heard Mr. R. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. P. Uppadhyaya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. C. Kayal, learned DSGI for the respondents/CGST.

¶20

2. The petitioner, in the present case, has challenged the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 20.10.2023, issued by respondent No. 4, alleging that during the financial year 2018-19, the petitioner has availed Input Tax Credit (hereinafter referred to as 'ITC') amounting to Rs. 2,38,928/-, which was in violation of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'CGST'), 2017, as the ITC was availed beyond the time limit prescribed by Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. Pursuant to the issuance of the said Show Cause Notice, Respondent No. 4 passed the Order-in-Original dated 07.02.2024, confirming the demand of Rs. 2,49,142/- along with interest of Rs. 553/- and a penalty of Rs. 24,914/-.

¶21

3. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the passing of the aforementioned Order-in-Original dated 07.02.2024, Subsections 5 and 6 were inserted in Section 16, extending the time limit for availing ITC for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 until 30th November 2021. The petitioner is required to pay a demand of Rs. 2,38,928/-.

¶22

It may be relevant to refer to Section 16, both pre-amendment and post-

¶23

Page No.# 3/5

¶24

amendment, of the CGST Act, 2017, which is extracted hereinbelow:

¶25

“ 16(4). A registered person shall not be entitled to take input tax credit in respect of any invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both after the [thirtieth day of November] following the end of financial year to which such invoice or [xxx] debit note pertains or furnishing of the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier: [PROVIDED that the registered person shall be entitled to take input tax credit after the due date of furnishing of the return under Section 39 for the month of September, 2018 till the due date of furnishing of the return under the said section for the month of March, 2019 in respect of any invoice or invoice relating to such debit note for supply of goods or services or both made during the financial year 2017-18, the details of which have been uploaded by the supplier under sub-Section (1) of Section 37 till the due date for furnishing the details under sub-section (1) of the said section for the month of March, 2019.]”

¶26

5. The provisions of Sections 5 and 6, as incorporated vide the said amendment, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow:

¶27

“ (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), in respect of an invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both pertaining to the Financial Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the registered person shall be entitled to take input tax credit in any return under Section 39 which is filed upto the thirtieth day of November, 2021.

¶28

(6) Where registration of a registered person is cancelled under section 29 and subsequently the cancellation of registration is revoked by any order, either under section 30 or pursuant to any order made by the Appellate Authority or the Appellate Tribunal or Court and where availment of input tax credit in respect of an invoice or debit note was not restricted under sub-section (4) on the date of order of cancellation of registration, the said person shall be entitled to take the input tax credit in respect of such invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both, in a return

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

under Section 39,-

¶31

(i) filed upto thirtieth day of November following the financial year to which such invoice or debit note pertains or furnishing of the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier; or

¶32

(ii) for the period from the date of cancellation of registration or the effective date of cancellation of registration, as the case may be, till the date of order of revocation of cancelation of registration, where such return is filed within thirty days from the date of order of revocation of cancellation of registration.”

¶33

6. It is seen from the aforementioned amendment that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 16(4) CGST Act, 2017, in respect of any invoice or debit note for the supply of goods or services, or both, pertaining to the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21, the registered person shall be entitled to take ITC in any return under Section 39, which is filed up to the 30th day of November, 2021.

¶34

7. In view of the aforementioned amendment, it is clear that the challenge made in the present proceedings before this Court is no longer required to be addressed. Accordingly, considering the amendments, it is evident that the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of ITC for the relevant period.

¶35

8. Ms. P. Uppadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the instant petition can be disposed of by directing the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 10,214/- which is the excess utilized amount and Rs. 553/- which is the interest on the case amount.

¶36

9. In response to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not have any objection to the payment of the aforesaid two amounts. Therefore, the

¶37

Page No.# 5/5

¶38

instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 10,214/- (excess utilized amount) and Rs. 553/- (interest on the case amount) within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶39

10. In view of the aforesaid direction, the Order-in-Original dated 07.02.2024 is set aside.

¶40

11. With the above directions and observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Saurabh Agarwalla v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Agarwalla v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Tanka Dahal and 122 Ors, Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Smti Merzuna Begum Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Ahsanul Hoque Barbhuiya Vs Hemanta Bhuyan, Acs

Jakirul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ariful Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

The District Commissioner Nalbari Vs MD Makshed Ali