Legal Victory: Madras High Court Upholds GST ITC Claim Despite Non-Availment in GSTR-3B, Ruling Based on GSTR-9 & 2A

Rate this post


[Writ Petition Nos. 3804, 3808 & 3813 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos. 4105, 4107, 4110, 4111, 4116 & 4119 of 2024]

In a significant legal development, the Madras High Court recently issued a groundbreaking judgment in the case of SRI SHANMUGA HARDWARES ELECTRICALS. This ruling has far-reaching implications for businesses navigating the complex terrain of Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.

Background: The case pertains to ITC claims for the assessment years 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020, initially rejected due to non-availability in the GSTR-3B returns. However, the petitioner contended that despite this, the claims were duly reflected in their GSTR-2A and GSTR-9 returns, warranting reconsideration by the assessing officer.

Court’s Decision: The Madras High Court, in its verdict, underscored that denying an ITC claim solely based on its absence in GSTR-3B returns is inadequate. The assessing officer must conduct a thorough examination of all relevant documents and afford the registered entity an opportunity to substantiate its claims. This highlights the necessity for a holistic approach to evaluating ITC claims, prioritizing the veracity of documentation over procedural formalities.

The petitioner, engaged in the trade of electrical products and hardware, asserted the correctness of their nil returns filed in GSTR-3B, asserting eligibility for ITC backed by evidence from GSTR-2A and GSTR-9 filings.

Key Highlights of the Judgment:

  1. Emphasis on Comprehensive Examination: The High Court stressed the imperative for the assessing officer to conduct a comprehensive assessment of ITC claims, considering all pertinent documents.
  2. Fair Opportunity for the Petitioner: Recognizing the significance of due process, the court mandated that the petitioner be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case, including a personal hearing.
  3. Reassessment Requirement: Upon submission of all supporting documents by the petitioner, the assessing officer is obligated to reassess the claim and issue a fresh assessment order, guided by a meticulous evaluation of the presented evidence and relevant statutory provisions.

Implications: This ruling sets a crucial precedent, reinforcing the principle that procedural lapses should not overshadow the substance of ITC claims. It serves as a clarion call for assessing officers to adopt a pragmatic approach, focusing on substance over form, and facilitating a transparent and equitable resolution of disputes concerning ITC entitlements.

Conclusion: The Madras High Court’s verdict in the case of SRI SHANMUGA HARDWARES ELECTRICALS underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rights of taxpayers under the GST framework. By prioritizing substantive evidence over procedural technicalities, the judgment ensures a fair and just adjudication process, fostering confidence and compliance within the GST ecosystem.

Visit for practical courses

Pooja Gupta

CA Pooja Gupta (CA, ISA, having 15 years of experience. Educator and Digital Creator

Disclaimer:- The opinions presented are exclusively those of the author and CA Guruji Classes. The material in this piece is intended purely for informational purposes and for individual, non-commercial consumption. It does not constitute expert guidance or an endorsement by any organization. The author, the organization, and its associates are not liable for any form of loss or harm resulting from the information in this article, nor for any decisions made based on it. Furthermore, no segment of this article or newsletter should be employed for any intention unless granted in written form, and we maintain the legal right to address any unauthorized utilization of our article or newsletter.

CA Pooja Gupta (CA, ISA, having 15 years of experience. Educator and Digital Creator

1 thought on “Legal Victory: Madras High Court Upholds GST ITC Claim Despite Non-Availment in GSTR-3B, Ruling Based on GSTR-9 & 2A”

Leave a Comment