Section 16(5) preserves ITC eligibility for specified financial years where returns were filed by 30 November 2021.

The petitioner, representing DM Services Private Limited, challenged the Order-in-Original dated 13.03.2024 concerning denial of Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) amounting to ₹84,58,480.

The challenge was principally based on: (i) the validity of the extension of the period for exercising powers under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”) by Notification No. 9/2023-CT dated 31.03.2023; and (ii) the petitioner’s claim that the relevant return for the financial year 2018–19 had already been filed on 23.10.2019, entitling it to the ITC.

During hearing, the petitioner relied on Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 2024.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to claim ITC of ₹84,58,480 in respect of the financial year 2018–19, where the relevant return was filed on 23.10.2019, in light of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act.

2. Whether the Order-in-Original dated 13.03.2024 was liable to be set aside on the ground that the period for exercise of powers under Section 73 of the CGST Act had been improperly extended by Notification No. 9/2023-CT dated 31.03.2023.

The Court applied Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, which provides that, notwithstanding Section 16(4), a registered person is entitled to claim ITC relating to invoices or debit notes pertaining to financial years 2017–18, 2018–19, 2019–20 and 2020–21 in any return under Section 39 filed up to 30.11.2021.

The Court also considered the petitioner’s challenge concerning Section 73 of the CGST Act and Notification No. 9/2023-CT dated 31.03.2023, although it did not adjudicate that issue after granting relief under Section 16(5).

The Court noted that the Order-in-Original itself showed that the petitioner had filed the return for financial year 2018–19 on 23.10.2019.

This date was well within the statutory cut-off of 30.11.2021 prescribed by Section 16(5). Consequently, the statutory non obstante provision overrode the limitation contained in Section 16(4), and the petitioner’s ITC claim of ₹84,58,480 could not be denied.

Since this statutory provision conclusively resolved the ITC dispute, the Court interfered with the impugned order without determining the separate challenge to the extension of the Section 73 period.

The Order-in-Original dated 13.03.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, GST, Guwahati Division-I was set aside and quashed. The interim order was vacated, and no costs were awarded.