Patna High Court
M/s Bhardwaj ConstructionversusUnion of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The petitioner must first file a rectification application before the competent authority under the procedure prescribed in the GST circular, and the writ petition is disposed.
Summary
M/s Bhardwaj Construction challenged an order passed under Section 73 of the Bihar GST Act that disallowed input tax credit (ITC) on the ground that the invoices were beyond the period prescribed in Section 16(4) of the BGST Act. The petitioner relied on a 2024 GST circular which, in view of the Finance (2) Act, 2024, retrospectively extended the time limit for availing ITC under Sections 16(5) and 16(6) of the Central GST Act. The respondents argued that the petitioner should seek rectification of the order under Section 148 of the CGST Act as prescribed in the circular, rather than filing a writ. The High Court held that the appropriate remedy is to file a rectification application before the competent authority within one month, and that the court will not entertain the writ otherwise. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue rectification.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner can directly approach the High Court for a writ against the order disallowing ITC, or must first seek rectification under Section 148 of the CGST Act as per the GST circular.
- Whether the retrospective extension of the time limit for ITC under Sections 16(5) and 16(6) of the CGST Act applies to the petitioner’s case.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — s. 16(4), 73
- Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — s. 148, 16(4), 16(5), 16(6)
- Finance (2) Act, 2024 — s. 118
Subjects
- input tax credit
- GST
- retrospective amendment
- Section 73
- Section 148
- rectification
- writ jurisdiction
- tax recovery
- circular
- BGST Act
- CGST Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4913 of 2026
======================================================
M/s Bhardwaj Construction through its Partner Kamlesh Kumar, aged about
48 years (Male), son of Ramashray Singh, Resident of 286, AP Colony, P.S.-
Rampur, District-Gaya Ji.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Union of India through the Principle Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Depart-
ment of Revenue), Government of India, New Delhi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of India, New
Delhi.
3. The State of Bihar through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Fi-
nance, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bi-
har, Patna.
5. The Commissioner, State Tax, Magadh Circle, Gaya Ji.
6. The Additional Commissioner (Appeal) State Tax, Magadh Division, Gaya
Ji.
7. The Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Gaya Ji.
8. The Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Gaya Ji.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amit Pandey, Sr. S.C., CGST & CX
Mrs. Shilpi Keshri, Jr. S.C., CGST & CX
Mrs. Ashmita Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
2 06-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is against the order
as contained in Annexure- P/2 passed under Section 73 of the
Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short 'BGST Act').
It is submitted that the credit taken by the petitioner of the tax
Patna High Court CWJC No.4913 of 2026(2) dt.06-07-2026
2/5
invoices/ debit notes were disallowed on the ground that the
availment of the tax invoices/ debit notes were beyond the
prescribed period/ extended period prescribed under Section
16(4) of the BGST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
although Annexure P/2 was passed sometime on 29.09.2023 but
the recovery has been made at this stage. The petitioner has
drawn the attention of this Court towards circular no.
237/31/2024-GST dated 15th October, 2024 issued by the
Government of India in Ministry of Finance, Department of
Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs GST
Policy Wing. It is submitted that by this circular, clarifications
have been given to with regard to the implementation of the
provisions of sub-Section (5) and sub-Section (6) of Section 16
of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short
'CGST Act'). According to the circular, sub-Section (5) and sub-
Section (6) of Section 16 of the CGST Act have been inserted in
Section 16 of the CGST Act with effect from the 1 st day of July,
2017, vide Section 118 of the Finance (2) Act, 2024 whereby the
time limit to avail input tax credit under provisions of sub-
Section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST Act has been
retrospectively extended in certain specified cases.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4913 of 2026(2) dt.06-07-2026
3/5
4. Learned counsel submits that the case of the
petitioner would be covered under the retrospectively extended
time limit. It is, thus, submitted that the order, as contained in
Annexure P/2, is fit to be quashed and the amount recovered
from the petitioner be refunded to the petitioner with statutory
interest.
5. Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned GP 7 represents the
State. Referring to the same circular, learned GP 7 points out
Paragraph '3.5' which reads as under:-
“where order under section 73 or
section 74 of the CGST Act has been issued
but no appeal against the said order has been
filed with the Appellate Authority, or where
the order under section 107 or section 108 of
the CGST Act has been issued by the
Appellate Authority or the Revisional
Authority but no appeal against the said
order has been filed with the Appellate
Tribunal:
In such cases, where any order
under section 73 or section 74 or section 107
or section 108 of the CGST Act has been
issued confirming demand for wrong
availment of input tax credit on account of
contravention of provisions of sub-section (4)
of section 16 of the CGST Act, but where such
input tax credit is now available as per the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4913 of 2026(2) dt.06-07-2026
4/5
provisions of sub-section (5) or sub-section
(6) of section 16 of the CGST Act, and where
appeal against the said order has not been
filed, the concerned taxpayer may apply for
rectification of such order under the special
procedure under section 148 of the CGST Act
notified vide Notification No. 22/2024-
Central tax dated 08.10.2024, within a period
of six months from the date of issuance of the
said notification.”
6. Under Paragraph 3.5.1 to Paragraph 3.5.5, the
procedures for filing of an application for rectification of an
order issued under Section 73 or Section 74 of the CGST Act
have been provided. It is his submission that instead of filing an
application for rectification before the competent authority,
petitioner has chosen to prefer a writ application. It is further
submitted that this Court sitting in its writ jurisdiction need not
examine as to whether the case of the petitioner would fall
within the specified cases which would be covered under the
retrospectively extended time limit.
7. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances,
the pleadings available on the record and the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion
that the contentions of the petitioner may be examined by the
competent authority, if the petitioner prefers an application
Patna High Court CWJC No.4913 of 2026(2) dt.06-07-2026
5/5
seeking rectification as provided under Paragraph 3.5 of the
circular (Annexure P/1).
8. We grant liberty to the petitioner to file a
rectification application within one month from today before the
competent authority. If such an application is preferred within
the given period, the competent authority shall examine the
application, give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and
pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period
of three months from the date of filing of the rectification
application.
9. This writ application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Kumar Manish, J)
Ranjeet/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.