This compilation indexes twelve High Court rulings decided between March 2025 and July 2026 in which Section 16(2) of the Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was a principal or co-principal section in dispute. The cases span Gujarat, Gauhati, Bombay, Punjab-Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, Orissa, and Delhi High Courts and cover a range of fact-patterns: ITC denial on goods purchased from suppliers with cancelled registrations, constitutional challenges to Section 16(2)(c), GST registration cancellation proceedings, bail in ITC-fraud prosecutions, refund review disputes, and procedural challenges to ex parte assessment orders. This index is intended for GST professionals, in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured, citation-ready starting point for further research.

Research index only — not legal advice. Nothing on this page constitutes legal, tax, or compliance advice. Readers must verify every ruling against the full text of the judgment from the official court portal or indiankanoon.org before relying on it in any professional context.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (mirrored in State GST Acts) governs the eligibility and conditions for availing input tax credit (ITC). Sub-section 16(2) sets out the cumulative conditions a registered person must satisfy before ITC can be claimed: (i) the registered person must be in possession of a tax invoice or debit note issued by a supplier registered under the Act; (ii) the registered person must have received the goods or services or both; (iii) the tax charged in respect of such supply has been actually paid to the Government by the supplier, either in cash or through utilisation of ITC admissible in respect of such supply — this is commonly referred to as the "Section 16(2)(c) condition"; and (iv) the registered person has furnished the return under Section 39. Section 16(1) broadly confers the right to ITC, while Section 16(4) imposes a time-limit for availing it. Together, these sub-sections have generated substantial litigation, particularly around the question of whether a bona fide recipient buyer can be denied ITC on account of default by the supplier in remitting tax to the Government.

The 12 rulings

1. M/S Aarya Metals vs The State Of Gujarat

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 28 July 2026
Sections engaged: 74(1), 16(2), 50
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition was filed before the Gujarat High Court as Special Civil Application No. 7535 of 2026. The petitioner's counsel submitted at the outset that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Aarti Enterprise Vs. State of Gujarat, (2026) 39 Centax 31 (Gujarat), and the learned Assistant Government Pleader was unable to controvert that proposition; the full outcome on the merits is not specified in the available source preview.

2. Mcleod Russel India Ltd vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 8 April 2026
Sections engaged: 16(2), 132
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This writ petition in the criminal jurisdiction (W.P.(Crl.)/19/2026) was filed before the Gauhati High Court by Mcleod Russel India Ltd. along with its Managing Director, Non-Executive Director, and Chief Financial Officer as co-petitioners, against the State of Assam and five GST authorities. The source preview sets out the parties' identities and addresses in detail but does not disclose the substantive ground of challenge or the final outcome within the available text; the matter appears to involve both Section 16(2) and Section 132 of the GST Act.

3. Rajkala Enterprises Private Limited vs Union Of India

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 18 March 2026
Sections engaged: 16(1), 16(2), 16(4)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution as Writ Petition No. 1955 of 2024 before the Bombay High Court, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash ex parte orders dated 30.03.2022 and 20.09.2022 on the grounds that they were passed without jurisdiction, without authority of law, and in violation of principles of natural justice. All three sub-sections — 16(1), 16(2), and 16(4) — were cited, indicating that the dispute may engage both the eligibility condition for ITC and the time-limit for availing it; the final outcome is not specified in the source preview.

4. Opes Chem Corp Private Ltd vs State Of Punjab And Others

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 5 February 2026
Sections engaged: 16(2), 29(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner sought setting aside of a show cause notice dated 16.06.2021 and orders dated 02.08.2021 and 09.11.2021, and further prayed for restoration of its GST registration. The petitioner's counsel argued that the proceedings were vitiated because the show cause notice was issued for cancellation of registration on the ground of fraud/wilful misstatement, whereas the cancellation order was passed on an entirely different ground — namely, that the firm was involved in circular trading and that no cash tax had been paid into the Government Treasury at any stage, thereby violating the provision of Section 16(2)(c) of the GST Act, 2017. The full outcome is not specified in the source preview.

5. Hariom Industries Through Proprietor vs State Of Gujarat

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 22 January 2026
Sections engaged: 74, 16(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (Special Civil Application No. 15039 of 2025) sought quashing of a Show Cause Notice dated 10.09.2024, an order dated 30.12.2024, and an appellate order dated 02.08.2025. The appellate authority — the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, (Appeal-1), Division-2, Ahmedabad — had rejected the appeal on the ground of delay, the appeal having been filed after a delay of 408 days, which was beyond the statutory period of 120 days. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying submersible pump stampings and is registered under GST in the State of Gujarat bearing registration No. 24ALZPP5568Q1ZQ; the full outcome before the High Court is not specified in the source preview.

6. Rajlaxmi Marketing vs The Assistant Commissioner

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 8 December 2025
Sections engaged: 16(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 103095 of 2025) was filed before the Karnataka High Court at Dharwad under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, praying to declare and strike down Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/SGST Acts as being unconstitutional. The petitioner, Rajlaxmi Marketing, is a proprietary concern carrying GSTIN 29ALOPJ8979L1ZU and is represented by its proprietor; the constitutional validity of the Section 16(2)(c) condition was expressly put in issue in this matter, and the final outcome is not specified in the available source preview.

7. Deepak Goyal vs Inspector (Anti-Evasion), Cgst

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 27 October 2025
Sections engaged: 132(1)(b), 16(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (CRM-M-49042-2025) was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in a complaint case filed by the CGST Commissionerate, Ludhiana under Section 132(1)(b)(c) of the CGST Act. According to the allegations set out in the source preview, the Anti-Evasion Branch found that two firms — M/s New Vasan Electric Company and M/s Shiv Enterprises — were involved in availing and passing of input tax credit on the strength of invoices issued by suppliers whose GST registrations had been cancelled suo motu; the final bail outcome is not specified in the source preview.

8. Multi Metal Industries vs The Union Of India

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 31 July 2025
Sections engaged: 16(2), 75(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (Special Civil Application No. 3182 of 2025) was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the Gujarat High Court, praying for quashing and setting aside the Order-in-Original dated 23.12.2024 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST, Ahmedabad South Commissionerate. A show-cause notice dated 6.8.2024 had been issued to the petitioner, which is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacturing and trading of Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Metal and Scrap and is duly registered under the GST Act; the full outcome on the merits is not specified in the source preview.

9. Alikunju Pattarumadom vs The Deputy Commissioner

Bench: Kerala High Court
Date: 23 May 2025
Sections engaged: 16(2), 39
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP(C) No. 10627 of 2024) was filed before the Kerala High Court by the proprietor of M/s Radius Plywood, a registered firm engaged in the business of manufacturing plywoods and sheets for veneering. The petitioner was aggrieved by an order by which the input tax credit availed pertaining to the assessment years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 were rejected; the matter came up for admission on 23.05.2025 and the court delivered its judgment on the same day, but the operative outcome is not specified in the source preview.

10. Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije vs M/S Odisha Trust Of Technical

Bench: Orissa High Court
Date: 16 May 2025
Sections engaged: 16(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The matter was heard as two interlinked cases — RVWPET No. 154 of 2023 (Review Petition) and CONTC No. 3374 of 2023 (Contempt Case) — before the Orissa High Court at Cuttack, and both were heard and disposed of together. The date of hearing was 22.04.2025 and the date of judgment was 16.05.2025; the source preview sets out procedural and party details but does not disclose the substantive grounds or the operative outcome within the available text.

11. Shalender Kumar vs Commissioner Delhi West Cgst

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 3 April 2025
Sections engaged: 16(2), 54(11)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (W.P.(C) 3824/2025) was filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution before the Delhi High Court challenging Order No. 04/2024-25 dated 14th January, 2025 and a Review Order No. 12/2023-24 dated 21st July, 2024, both passed by the Commissioner, Delhi West CGST Commissionerate. The petitioner, engaged in wholesale trade and export of FMCGs and registered with GSTIN 07ANZPK3951A1ZT, had been granted a refund by the Appellate Authority for the period December 2022 vide Order in Appeal dated 17th January, 2024, wherein the claim was held to be genuine and legitimate; the full outcome of the High Court proceedings is not specified in the source preview.

12. H N Cotex Pvt Ltd vs State Of Gujarat

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 28 March 2025
Sections engaged: 16(2), 75(4)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (Special Civil Application No. 5657 of 2024) was taken up for hearing under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Gujarat High Court in a matter described as involving a controversy in "narrow compass," with the matter heard by consent of both parties' advocates on the day of the oral judgment. The petitioner, H N Cotex Pvt Ltd, challenged the proceedings of the State of Gujarat; the source preview sets out procedural steps but does not disclose the operative outcome or the specific factual matrix beyond the case identifiers.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) is a live issue. At least one petition in this set — Rajlaxmi Marketing vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Karnataka High Court, 8 December 2025) — expressly prayed to have Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/SGST Acts declared unconstitutional, reflecting a recurring challenge by taxpayers who argue that a recipient should not bear the consequence of a supplier's failure to remit tax.
Circular trading and supplier-default are the dominant ITC-denial fact-patterns. In Opes Chem Corp Private Ltd (Punjab-Haryana HC) and Deepak Goyal (Punjab-Haryana HC), the core allegation by revenue authorities was ITC availed on invoices from suppliers with cancelled registrations or firms involved in circular trading — the two most common factual triggers for Section 16(2) disputes visible across these cases.
Mismatch between show cause notice ground and order ground is a recurring procedural challenge. In Opes Chem Corp Private Ltd, the petitioner specifically argued that the show cause notice was issued on the ground of fraud/misrepresentation but the cancellation order was passed on a different ground (circular trading / Section 16(2)(c) violation), raising the natural justice objection of a decision beyond the scope of the notice. This procedural mismatch argument appears as a distinct litigation strategy.
Limitation and delay before appellate authorities are frequently in issue. In Hariom Industries (Gujarat HC, 22 January 2026), the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, the delay being 408 days against the statutory 120-day period. Taxpayers regularly approach the High Court under Article 226 after such dismissals, making the interplay of the statutory time-limit with the High Court's writ jurisdiction a recurring procedural theme.
ITC denial spanning early GST years (2017–18, 2018–19) continues to generate writ litigation. In Alikunju Pattarumadom (Kerala HC, 23 May 2025), the ITC rejection related to assessment years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, indicating that disputes from the first two years of GST implementation are still being adjudicated at the High Court level in 2025, with no consolidation or resolution evident from this data set alone.

How to use this compilation

This index is a starting-point reference, not a substitute for primary source research. Each case entry above provides only the information visible in the source preview and the structured metadata supplied to this database. Because the full text of several judgments extends well beyond the preview, critical holdings, ratio decidendi, interim stays, and operative directions may not be visible here. Researchers must retrieve the full judgment from indiankanoon.org, the respective High Court's official portal, or a licensed legal database before citing any ruling in submissions, opinions, or compliance memoranda.

Before treating any ruling as currently operative, researchers should check: (a) whether the judgment has been stayed by a superior court; (b) whether an appeal or SLP has been filed and admitted before the Supreme Court or a Division Bench; (c) whether a subsequent CBIC circular, notification, or Finance Act amendment has altered the statutory position under Section 16(2) that the court was considering; and (d) whether the court's observations were made in the context of an admission hearing, an oral order, or a final reasoned judgment — the source preview field identifies several of these as "ORAL ORDER" or "ORAL JUDGMENT," which may have different precedential weight under the relevant court's rules.

Finally, note that the outcome_direction field for all twelve cases in this compilation is recorded as "Outcome not specified in source." This means the database's structured extraction did not capture a clear dispositional signal (allowed / dismissed / partly allowed) from the available text. Researchers should not infer from the mere filing of a petition that the petitioner succeeded or failed; the full judgment must be consulted to determine the actual relief granted or declined.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 16(2) GST ITC: 12 High Court Rulings Compiled (2025–2026)