This compilation indexes twelve writ petitions decided by the Madras High Court, Karnataka High Court, and Jharkhand High Court between December 2025 and July 2026, all centred on the inter-play between the input tax credit time-bar in Section 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Acts and the retrospective relief introduced by Section 16(5) through the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. The compilation is aimed at in-house GST teams, Big-4 indirect-tax associates, and law-firm researchers who need a structured index of judicial activity on this provision. Each entry reproduces the court-verified identity fields verbatim and draws its procedural notes exclusively from the source preview for that case.

Research index only — not legal advice. This page is a structured case-law reference. Nothing herein constitutes legal opinion, tax advice, or a recommendation to adopt any position. Verify every ruling against the full authenticated judgment before relying on it.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 16(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 as a retrospective carve-out from the time-limit imposed by Section 16(4). Section 16(4) ordinarily bars a registered person from availing input tax credit on an invoice or debit note after the due date of the return for September of the following financial year, or the date of filing the annual return, whichever is earlier. Section 16(5) provides that, notwithstanding Section 16(4), a registered person shall be entitled to take input tax credit in respect of an invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both pertaining to the Financial Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21, in any return under Section 39 filed up to the thirtieth day of November, 2021. The CBIC also issued a circular clarifying the scope of the amendment. The practical effect is that demands and orders passed under Section 16(4) denying ITC for those four financial years became susceptible to challenge once Section 16(5) came into force, leading to the wave of writ petitions indexed below.

The 12 rulings

1. Tvl. Indian Railway Finance vs Assistant Commissioner

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 27 July 2026
Sections engaged: 16(4), 16(5), 31(3)(f)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed two writ petitions (WP Nos. 19693 & 19695 of 2023) under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Madras High Court: the first seeking certiorari to quash an impugned order relating to GSTIN 33AAACI0681C1Z6 for FY 2020-21 dated 09.06.2023, and the second seeking to quash a recovery notice dated 12.06.2023 for the same GSTIN and financial year. Per the source preview, the appeal was filed challenging both the underlying assessment order and the consequential recovery notice, with the petitioner represented by M/s. Lakshmi Kumaran and Sridharan Attorneys.

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 petitioner filed WP No. 7217 of 2026 (T-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru, seeking certiorari to quash Order-in-Original bearing DIN 20240872MR00006176AB dated 26.08.2024 passed by the respondent, which the petitioner alleged was unlawful, illegal, arbitrary, and ultra vires the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. Per the source preview, the petition was at the stage of hearing before the court.

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 petitioner filed WP No. 6841 of 2026 (T-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru, seeking to quash Show Cause Notice No. 50/2023-24/CED3/SUPDT dated 05.12.2023 issued by the respondent. Per the source preview, the petition was coming on for fresh hearing at the time of the order, with the CBDT and the GST Council also arrayed as respondents.

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 petitioner filed WP No. 200771 of 2026 (T-RES) before the Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka High Court under Articles 226 and 227, seeking certiorari to quash the adjudication order dated 22.04.2024 passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/SGST Act for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner also sought, in the event of remand, a direction for de-novo adjudication strictly in accordance with law after issuance of a specific notice of personal hearing and a reasonable opportunity to produce documents and make oral and written submissions.

5. 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 petitioner filed WP No. 8495 of 2026 (T-RES) before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru under Articles 226 and 227, seeking certiorari to set aside Show Cause Notice bearing SCN No. 6/2024-25 DNWD4 dated 12.05.2024 issued by the first respondent. Per the source preview, the petition came on for preliminary hearing and an oral order was made, with the petitioner being a proprietorship concern registered under the CGST/SGST Act, 2017.

6. 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 petitioner filed W.P. No. 2296 of 2026 before the Madras High Court under Article 226, seeking certiorari to quash the impugned order bearing reference number 98/2024/GST/AC dated 08.08.2024, which was challenged as arbitrary, without authority of law, and in contravention of Section 16(5) of the GST Act, as well as in violation of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution. Per the source preview, the writ petition was being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

7. Arunachala Gas Agency vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Cgst And

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 28 January 2026
Sections engaged: 16(4), 16(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No. 2056 of 2026 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court under Article 226, seeking certiorari to quash DRC 07 Order-in-Original No. MDU-GST-ASC-10/2024 dated 28.03.2024 for assessment year 2018-19, challenging it as illegal, arbitrary, constituting undue enrichment, and without jurisdiction in view of the amended Section 16(5) of the TNGST Act, 2017 as amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. The petitioner also sought a direction to pass a fresh assessment order after affording an opportunity of being heard and to issue refund of the eligible amount collected from the petitioner.

8. Manoj Kumar Singh vs Principal Commissioner

Bench: Jharkhand High Court
Date: 21 January 2026
Sections engaged: 16(4), 16(5), 39
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed W.P. (T) No. 7467 of 2025 before the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi. Per the source preview, the court observed at this stage that there was no question of going into the issue of alleged unconstitutionality of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 because, subsequent to the passing of the order in appeal dated 29.12.2023, Section 16 had been amended by inserting sub-section (5), which entitled registered persons to take input tax credit in any return under Section 39 filed up to the thirtieth day of November, 2021, in respect of invoices or debit notes pertaining to Financial Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21. The court also noted the CBIC circular issued in this regard.

9. M/S. Surya Textile vs The Superintendent Of GST And Central

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 9 January 2026
Sections engaged: 16(4), 16(5), 73
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No. 850 of 2026 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court under Article 226, seeking certiorari to quash Order-in-Original No. 41/2024-GST dated 06.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, challenging the order as cryptic, barred by limitation, non-speaking, illegal, constituting undue enrichment, and without jurisdiction in view of the amended Section 16(5) of the TNGST Act, 2017 as amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. The petitioner further sought a direction to pass a fresh assessment order after affording an opportunity of being heard.

10. M/S.Selva Vilas Jewellery vs The Superintendent Of GST And Central

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 7 January 2026
Sections engaged: 16(4), 16(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No. 35289 of 2025 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court under Article 226, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash Order-in-Original No. 14/2024-GST dated 02.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, on grounds including that the order was cryptic, barred by limitation, non-speaking, illegal, constituting undue enrichment, and without jurisdiction in view of the amended Section 16(5) of the TNGST Act, 2017 as amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. The petitioner additionally sought a direction to pass a fresh assessment order after affording an opportunity of being heard.

11. M/S. Clan Laboratories Private Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 5 January 2026
Sections engaged: 16(5), 17(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed W.P. No. 50337 of 2025 before the Madras High Court under Article 226, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider and process an application dated 07.10.2025 in FORM GST SPL-02 filed by the petitioner for waiver of interest and penalty without reference to limitation, within a time limit to be stipulated by the court. Per the source preview, the petition relates to SGST dues comprising tax, interest, and penalty.

12. Shiminko Engineering And Construction vs State Tax Officer

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 18 December 2025
Sections engaged: 16(4), 16(5), 16(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed WP No. 49462 of 2025 before the Madras High Court under Article 226, seeking certiorari to quash the impugned order bearing reference number ZD330724217193M dated 18.07.2024 with proceedings thereon under GSTIN 33AABCD6485C1ZW for the period 2019-20. Per the source preview, the writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 amendment as the central trigger. Multiple petitions across the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (cases 7, 9, and 10) explicitly invoke the amended Section 16(5) of the TNGST Act, 2017 as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, as the primary jurisdictional foundation for seeking quashing of orders that had denied ITC under the earlier time-bar provision.
Writ at the admission stage. Several matters were disposed of or heard at the admission stage itself (cases 6 and 12), indicating that courts in this cluster were taking up these petitions promptly — a pattern consistent with the large volume of similarly-situated taxpayer challenges generated by the retrospective amendment.
Multi-jurisdictional reach. Although the Madras High Court (multiple benches: Chennai and Madurai) accounts for the largest share of rulings in this index, the Karnataka High Court (both Bengaluru and Kalaburagi benches) and the Jharkhand High Court also feature, confirming that litigation on Section 16(5) was not geographically confined.
Demand-plus-recovery notice duality. Case 1 is notable for involving twin petitions — one against the underlying assessment order and one against the consequential recovery notice — illustrating that taxpayers in this wave of litigation sometimes filed separate writ petitions to arrest both the demand and its enforcement simultaneously.
Overlap with Section 73 adjudications and de-novo remand prayers. Cases 4, 9, and 10 show that Section 16(5) arguments were raised not only against assessment orders but also against adjudication orders passed under Section 73(9), with petitioners in some instances explicitly seeking de-novo adjudication rather than outright quashing, signalling a pragmatic litigation strategy acknowledging that remand may be the available remedy.

How to use this compilation

This index is a starting point for locating relevant judicial activity on Section 16(5) of the CGST/SGST Acts in the 2025–2026 window. Each entry provides the verbatim court-verified identity fields — bench, date, sections engaged, and outcome direction — drawn from structured data sourced from official court portals. Before placing reliance on any ruling in a compliance filing, appellate submission, or legal opinion, researchers should obtain and read the full authenticated judgment from the official court portal (mhc.tn.gov.in/judis, karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in, or jharkhandhighcourt.nic.in, as applicable) or from indiankanoon.org. Many of the cases in this index were at the admission or preliminary hearing stage at the time of reporting, meaning a final substantive ruling on the merits may have been delivered subsequently.

Researchers should also cross-check whether any ruling indexed here has been stayed, reversed, or distinguished by a coordinate bench or a division bench before citing it as authority. Given the retrospective nature of Section 16(5) and the volume of pending litigation, coordinate and appellate courts may have issued clarificatory rulings after the dates listed. In addition, CBIC circulars and instructions issued under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 framework should be read alongside the judicial rulings, as several courts in this cluster reference CBIC guidance when framing the operative directions.

Finally, readers should note that the outcome direction for all twelve cases in this index is recorded as "Outcome not specified in source." This reflects the limitations of the structured preview data available at the time of indexing, not a conclusion that the petitions were undecided. Access the full judgment text to ascertain the dispositive order, any conditions imposed, and whether the matter was remanded, disposed of, or listed for further hearing.

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(5) GST ITC: 12 High Court Writ Rulings (2025-2026)