This compilation indexes twelve High Court rulings decided between February 2026 and May 2026 that engaged Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — the provision that prescribes a time-limit for availing input tax credit. Several petitions also engaged Section 16(5), the retrospective amendment introduced to provide relief for returns filed beyond the original deadline. The compilation is intended as a research reference for in-house GST teams, Big-4 indirect tax associates, and law firm practitioners tracking the evolving judicial landscape around ITC eligibility and time-bar disputes.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference drawn from court records. Nothing on this page constitutes legal or tax advice. Readers must consult the full judgment text and verify for any subsequent stays, appeals, or reversals before relying on any ruling in a professional context.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes the outer time-limit by which a registered person must avail input tax credit in respect of any invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services. Under the provision, ITC is not available if the relevant GSTR-3B return (or the return under Section 39) is furnished after the thirtieth day of November following the end of the financial year to which the invoice pertains, or after the date of furnishing the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier. Section 16(5), inserted subsequently, operates as a retrospective amendment providing conditional relief for returns filed for specified tax periods beyond the Section 16(4) deadline. Disputes around the application of these provisions — including whether demands raised by the department are legally sustainable where returns were filed late — have generated a significant volume of writ petitions before High Courts across India.

The 12 rulings

1. Surajmal Jalan Road vs Union Of India

Bench: Jharkhand High Court
Date: 6 May 2026
Sections engaged: 16(4), 73(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the Jharkhand High Court as W.P. (T) No. 3036 of 2026, by M/s. Emotions Transmission Pvt. Ltd. (having its office at Seth Surajmal Jalan Road, Deoghar, Jharkhand) against Union of India through the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Ranchi, and other respondents. Per the source preview, the petition was admitted and the matter proceeded before a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court; the substantive merits of the petition are not resolvable from the available preview text.

2. M/S Jahanpanah Clothing Private vs Superintendent Of Central Tax

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 22 April 2026
Sections engaged: 16(4), 16(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (WP No. 7217 of 2026, NC: 2026:KHC:21951) was filed before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, praying to quash Order-in-Original bearing DIN 20240872MR00006176AB dated 26.08.2024 passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Range DND1 North Division-1, Bangalore North Commissionerate, on the grounds that the impugned order was unlawful, illegal, arbitrary, and ultra vires the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. The substantive outcome of the petition is not ascertainable from the available source preview.

3. M/S Abe Security Mechanics Private vs The Superintendent Of The Central Ax

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 22 April 2026
Sections engaged: 16(4), 16(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (WP No. 6841 of 2026, NC: 2026:KHC:21950) was filed before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking to quash Show Cause Notice No. 50/2023-24/CED3/SUPDT dated 05.12.2023 issued by the Superintendent of the Central Tax, Div-3, GST Commissionerate, Bengaluru East; additional respondents included the Director, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, and the Goods and Service Tax Council. The petition came on for fresh hearing and the final outcome is not ascertainable from the available source preview.

4. Doulathray S Marnoor vs Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 16 April 2026
Sections engaged: 73(9), 16(4), 16(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (WP No. 200771 of 2026, NC: 2026:KHC-K:3391) was filed before the Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking to quash an adjudication order dated 22.04.2024 passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/SGST Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-1, DGSTO, Kalaburagi, for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner also prayed that, in the event of remand, de-novo adjudication be directed strictly in accordance with law, with a specific notice of personal hearing and reasonable opportunity to produce documents and make oral and written submissions; the final outcome of the petition is not ascertainable from the available source preview.

5. Page No.# 1/5 vs Union Of India And 3 Ors

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 6 April 2026
Sections engaged: 16(4), 39
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (WP(C)/1733/2026, citation 2026:GAU-AS:5016) was filed before the Gauhati High Court by Saurabh Agarwalla against Union of India and three others, including the Commissioner and Superintendent, Central Goods and Services Tax, Dibrugarh. Per the source preview, the petitioner challenged a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 20.10.2023 issued by Respondent No. 4, which alleged that during the financial year 2018-19, the petitioner had availed Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 2,38,928/- in contravention of the applicable provisions; the final outcome of the petition is not ascertainable from the available source preview.

6. M.K.M.Construction Company Pvt Ltd vs The Chairman And Managing Director

Bench: Kerala High Court
Date: 30 March 2026
Sections engaged: 16(4)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (WP(C) No. 26634 of 2022, citation 2026:KER:28637) was filed before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam and appears to have been disposed of on 30 March 2026; respondents included Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and its officials, as well as officers of the Kerala State GST Department. The source preview indicates a multi-respondent matter involving the State Tax Officer (Perinthalmanna), the Joint Commissioner (Taxpayer Service, SGST), and the Commissioner of State GST; the substantive merits and final outcome of the petition are not ascertainable from the available source preview.

7. 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 (Writ Petition No. 1955 of 2024, citation 2026:BHC-OS:7096-DB) was filed before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for the quashing of 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. The petitioner sought writs of certiorari in respect of both impugned orders; the final outcome of the petition is not ascertainable from the available source preview.

8. M/S. S R S Electronics vs Superintendent Of Central Tax

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 13 March 2026
Sections engaged: 16(4), 16(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (WP No. 8495 of 2026, NC: 2026:KHC:15091) was filed before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of certiorari to set aside Show Cause Notice bearing SCN No. 6/2024-25 DNWD4 dated 12.05.2024 issued by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Division NWD-4, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. The petition came on for preliminary hearing and the oral order recorded therein; the final outcome is not ascertainable from the available source preview.

9. K. Sudhakar And Co vs The Superintendent Of GST And Central

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 20 February 2026
Sections engaged: 16(4)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (W.P.(MD) No. 4813 of 2026) was filed before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of certiorari to call for records pertaining to Order-in-Original No. 11/2023 dated 22.12.2023 issued by the Superintendent of GST and Central Excise, Karur III Range, and to quash the same. Per the source preview, the petitioner is a registered dealer under the GST Act/CGST Act whose claim of ITC was reversed/negatived by the respondent-Department, and the petitioner was consequently directed to pay tax, penalty, and interest; the final outcome is not ascertainable from the available source preview.

10. Sri Sangamam Agencies vs The Superintendent Of GST & Central

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 13 February 2026
Sections engaged: 16(4)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (W.P. No. 4845 of 2026) was filed before the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of certiorari to call for and quash Order-in-Original No. 08/2024 GST-(Supdt.) dated 12.01.2024, by which the proposal in Show Cause Notice No. 23/2023-GST (SUPDT) dated 09.11.2023 was confirmed against the petitioner. Per the source preview, demands including applicable interest were confirmed against the petitioner by the impugned order; the final outcome of the petition is not ascertainable from the available source preview.

11. M/S. Malligai Agencies vs The Assistant Commissioner Of GST And

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 11 February 2026
Sections engaged: 16(4)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitions (W.P.(MD) Nos. 599 & 600 of 2026) were filed before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash assessment orders passed against the petitioner for GSTIN 33BAFPK6966F1ZL for the year 2018-19, including Order-in-Original/DRC 07 No. 04/2024 GST dated 29.02.2024 and Order-in-Original No. 5/2024, on the grounds that the orders were illegal and devoid of merits; the petitioner also prayed for a direction to redo the assessment proceedings for the year 2018-19. The final outcome is not ascertainable from the available source preview.

12. M/S.Asian Lifts And Escalator Private vs Assistant Commissioner Of Cgst &

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 6 February 2026
Sections engaged: 16(4), 16(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (W.P. No. 2296 of 2026) was filed before the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of certiorari to call for and quash Order bearing reference number 98/2024/GST/AC dated 08.08.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Porur Division, Chennai South Commissionerate. Per the source preview, the petition alleged that the impugned order was arbitrary, without authority of law, and in contravention of Section 16(5) of the GST Act, and also in violation of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution; the petition was taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Writ jurisdiction as the predominant remedy. Across all twelve cases, taxpayers approached High Courts under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution by way of writ petitions seeking certiorari or certiorarified mandamus. No case in this compilation involved a statutory appellate route as the primary forum, suggesting that petitioners viewed the constitutional writ route as the appropriate forum to challenge orders and notices raising ITC time-bar issues.
Concurrent invocation of Section 16(5) alongside Section 16(4). In six of the twelve cases (cases 2, 3, 4, 8, and 12 from this compilation), Section 16(5) was engaged alongside Section 16(4). This pattern indicates that, in multiple writ petitions, petitioners were simultaneously arguing that Section 16(5)'s retrospective relief provision applied to their fact situation, rather than merely contesting the Section 16(4) time-bar on its own terms.
Geographic spread across multiple High Courts. The twelve rulings span five High Courts — Jharkhand, Karnataka (including the Kalaburagi Bench), Gauhati, Kerala, Bombay, and Madras (including the Madurai Bench). The Karnataka High Court alone accounts for four of the twelve cases, and the Madras High Court accounts for four, reflecting a high volume of ITC time-limit litigation in these jurisdictions during early 2026.
Tax period 2018-19 features prominently. Multiple petitions (cases 4, 11) explicitly reference the financial year or GSTIN assessment year 2018-19 in the source previews. This is consistent with the pattern of departments issuing demands for early GST implementation years, and taxpayers contesting those demands at the High Court level.
Outcome data unavailable at source preview stage. None of the twelve cases carry a determinative outcome in the structured data. This may reflect early-stage disposals (preliminary hearing, admission stage, or interim orders) rather than final merits adjudication, which is a recurring feature of constitutional writ litigation involving tax demands that are challenged promptly after issuance.

How to use this compilation

Researchers using this compilation should treat each entry as a pointer to the full judgment rather than a self-contained statement of law. The source previews reproduced here are truncated extracts from court records; they capture the cause title, prayer, and early procedural paragraphs but generally do not include the operative portion of the order or the court's reasoning on the merits. Before drawing any conclusion about the legal position taken by a particular court, users should retrieve the full judgment text from indiankanoon.org, the relevant High Court's official portal (e.g., mhc.tn.gov.in/judis for Madras, karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in for Karnataka), or a licensed legal database.

Users should also check whether any of these orders have been subsequently stayed, varied, or reversed on appeal. Writ orders at the High Court level — particularly interim or admission-stage orders — are frequently challenged before the Supreme Court or reviewed by larger benches. A ruling listed here with "Outcome not specified in source" may have a determinative outcome in a subsequent order that is not captured in this compilation. Checking for connected SLPs, review petitions, or Letters Patent Appeals is essential before citing any of these cases in a legal brief or compliance opinion.

Finally, users should cross-reference applicable CBIC circulars and instructions issued in connection with Section 16(4) and Section 16(5), as departmental instructions may govern how field officers are directed to respond to writ proceedings or apply the retrospective amendment. Circulars do not bind High Courts but can be relevant to understanding the department's litigation position and any administrative relief available outside the writ route.

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.

GST Section 16(4) ITC Time-Limit: 12 High Court Rulings (2026)