01Facts
The petitioner challenged an order dated April 29, 2024, issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act for the assessment year (AY) 2018-19.
¶ 2Previously, an order-in-original dated March 6, 2023, had imposed a demand of ₹4,22,88,416/- on the petitioner for the period 2017-18 to 2019-20.
¶ 6-7The petitioner had filed GSTR-3B returns for July 2018 to March 2020 after the due date but before November 30, 2021.
¶ 5, 8The Revenue contended that the April 2024 order was a rectification of the 2023 order and that the petitioner failed to prove compliance with the timeline for the new statutory amendment.
¶ 11-1202Issues
i.1. Whether the order dated April 29, 2024, is liable to be set aside in light of the retrospective amendment introduced via Section 16(5) of the CGST Act.
¶ 3ii.2. Whether the issuance of the subsequent order for the same assessment year constitutes double adjudication for the same cause of action.
¶ 703Law Applied
The court applied Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, inserted via the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, which retrospectively regularizes Input Tax Credit (ITC) for FY 2017-18 to 2020-21 provided returns were filed by November 30, 2021.
¶ 4It also relied on the precedent Hiranmoy Dutta vs. State of West Bengal [2025] 172 taxmann.com 750 (Calcutta), which held that taxpayers cannot be denied the benefit of the curative amendment if returns were filed within the new statutory cut-off.
¶ 9, 15Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73Section 16Section 39
04Reasoning
The court found that Section 16(5) is a curative and retrospective provision effective from July 1, 2017.
¶ 14While the Revenue argued that the assessment was concluded and the amendment could not reopen it, the court determined that the petitioner had made a prima facie case that their returns (filed before Nov 30, 2021) fell within the protected window.
¶ 13-14Applying the ratio of Hiranmoy Dutta, the court reasoned that the denial of ITC was illegal because the amendment specifically intended to regularize delayed filings for the subject periods.
¶ 15Consequently, the order dated April 29, 2024, which ignored this retrospective benefit, was found unsustainable.
¶ 1505Holding
The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated April 29, 2024.
¶ 16It held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the amendment under Section 16(5) if the filing dates are verified.
¶ 15, 17The Joint Commissioner was directed to re-adjudicate the original order dated March 6, 2023, within six weeks, specifically to verify the GSTR-3B filing dates and apply the statutory benefit. Coercive steps were restrained pending re-adjudication.
¶ 17Original Court PDF
M/S A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LTDvsUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
