Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ce Mttcc Jv vs The Superintendent on 18 June, 2025
11 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
18.06.2025 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
sb
Ct 5 APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 10506 of 2025
CE MTTCC JV
Versus
The Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise
Range II, Durgapur II Division & Ors.
Mr. Souradeep Majumder
... For the petitioner.
Mr. Biswajit Maity
... For Union of India.
Ms. Manasi Mukherjee
Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee
... For the CGST authorities.
1.
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on
record.
2. The short point that falls for consideration in the
present writ petition is whether the writ petitioner is
entitled to the benefit of input tax credit
notwithstanding the petitioner having not filed the
return under Section 39 of the WBGST/CGST Act,
2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act’) within
the time prescribed in the said Act.
3. Admittedly in this case, the relevant GSTR-3B for
October, 2020 has been filed on 19th February, 2022. It
may be noted that ordinarily in terms of the provisions
contained in Section 16(4) of the said Act, unless the
2
return in respect of input tax credit is filed within 30th
day of November following the end of financial year, the
taxable person is not entitled to the benefit of the input
tax credit. The petitioner in respect of the tax period
October, 2020 was obliged to file the return at the end
of the financial year i.e. March, 2021 on/or before 30th
November, 2021. Admittedly such return has been filed
beyond the due date on 19th February, 2022.
Subsequently, the statute was amended and Section
16(5) of the said Act was inserted by The Finance (No.2)
Act, 2024, No.15 of 2024, dated 16th October, 2024
with effect from 1st July, 2017. In terms of the
provisions contained in the said newly inserted sub-
section (5) of Section 16 of the said Act, it would
transpire that the legislature to negate the mischief of
Section 16(4) to a certain extent provided therein, had
in fact, extended the period for filing the returns under
Section 39 of the said Act for the period upto 2020-21,
till 30th November, 2021.
4. The learned advocate representing the petitioner
would, however, argue that in case of 2020-21 no
extension has been granted as in ordinary course the
petitioner was entitled to file the return upto 30th
November, 2021. Since, extension has been granted for
the tax period 2020-21 as is recorded in sub-section (5)
of Section 16 thereof, the extended date in respect of
3
the tax period 2020-21 should be construed as 30th
November, 2022. Independent of the above, he would
submit that the time to file the return for the year
2020-21 fell during the Covid-19 pandemic and having
regard thereto, ordinarily the aforesaid time ought to
have been extended especially having regard to the
judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the suo motu writ petition (C) 3 of 2020 on 10th
January, 2022.
5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties I find that although the Covid-19
period was prevailing during the relevant point of time
i.e. during 2020-21 and though the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the suo motu writ petition (C) 3 of 2020 had
extended the period of limitation, inter alia, for filing of
appeals/proceedings including suits vide order dated
10th January, 2022, however, having regard to the fact
that Section 16(5) had been inserted subsequently, it is
obvious that the legislature being conscious of the
above situation had chosen not to extend the period for
filing returns under Section 39 of the said Act for the
year 2020-21, beyond 30th November, 2021. The
constitutional validity of the aforesaid Section is not
under challenge. Having regard thereto, I am unable to
accede to the contention of the petitioner.
6. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
4
7. There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for,
be made available to the parties upon compliance with the
requisite formalities.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)