Delay and Laches Defeat ITC Claim: HC Refuses Relief Despite Supplier Certificates:

High Court declines interference where taxpayer failed to respond to notices and approached court after prolonged delay
HC Rejects ITC Relief Due to Delay Despite Supplier Certificates

Delay and Laches Defeat ITC Claim: HC Refuses Relief Despite Supplier Certificates
The petitioner, a GST-registered assessee, faced proceedings for Assessment Year 2017–18 after discrepancies were noticed between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, indicating excess Input Tax Credit (ITC). A notice in Form GST ASMT-10 was issued in June 2020, followed by a show cause notice in September 2021. However, the petitioner failed to submit proper replies or supporting documents during the proceedings. Thereafter, an order under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act was passed in November 2022 demanding Rs. 2.89 lakh.
The petitioner obtained certificates from suppliers in August 2023 confirming that tax had been paid on the transactions. Relying on these certificates, the petitioner approached the High Court in 2026 seeking quashing of the demand order and an opportunity to have the certificates considered.
Issue Before Court: Whether relief can be granted to an assessee who failed to respond to statutory notices and approached the Court after significant delay, relying on subsequently obtained supplier certificates.
HC's Order: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner was guilty of gross delay and negligence in pursuing available remedies. The Court noted that despite multiple opportunities, no proper replies or supporting documents were furnished during adjudication.
Further, even after obtaining supplier certificates in August 2023, the petitioner waited over 2½ years to approach the Court. Such inaction was fatal. The Court emphasised that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked in cases where the petitioner has been careless and allowed proceedings to attain finality.
The Court also distinguished earlier judgments relied upon by the petitioner, observing that those cases did not involve such prolonged delay and inaction. Thus, no interference was warranted.
To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below
About Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2214My Recent Articles
- ITAT Condones Delay, Allows BSNL VRS Tax Exemption Under Section 10(10B)Premium
- ITAT Deletes Rs 30 Lakh Penalty Over Defective Section 274 NoticePremium
- ITAT Remands Rs 7 Lakh Addition for Fresh Verification of Loan SourcePremium
- ITAT Deletes Addition, Accepts Agricultural Income as Source of Land InvestmentPremium
- ITAT Condones 433-Day Delay, Restores Section 54F and Capital Gains IssuesPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








