ITC Can’t Be Denied Without Hearing Buyer’s Bona Fides | HC
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 23 December, 2025

Case Details: MCLEOD Russel India Ltd. vs. Union of India - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 322 (Gauhati)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Ashutosh Kumar, CJ. & Arun Dev Choudhury, J.
-
A. Kanodia, Adv. for the Petitioner.
-
S.C. Keyal, Standing Counsel & Ms R. Hussain, Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, engaged in the tea business, challenged the validity of Section 16(2)(aa) of the CGST Act. It was contended that the denial of input tax credit (ITC) solely on account of non-reflection of supplier details in Form GSTR-2A/2B and supplier’s non-compliance under Section 37/38 was irrational. It was submitted that purchasers could not ensure supplier compliance in Form GSTR-1 filings. The Department of Revenue maintained that ITC entitlement was subject to statutory conditions designed to curb fraud. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that Section 16(2)(aa) must be read down to prevent denial of ITC to bona fide recipients solely due to supplier non-compliance in GSTR-1 and non-reflection in GSTR-2A/2B. The Court interpreted that while ITC entitlement must be established, it must be linked exclusively to supplier compliance. The tax collected by the seller was ultimately borne by the buyer, not included in the sale price. While the buyer must establish entitlement to the credit, it is unfair to deny it solely because the supplier failed to comply. It concluded that authorities under CGST must allow the petitioner to substantiate the bona fide status before denying credit.
List of Cases Referred to
- Suncraft Energy (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner, State Tax [2023] 153 taxmann.com 81/99 GST 400/77 GSTL 55 (Calcutta) (para 10)
- Diya Agencies v. State Tax Officer [2023] 154 taxmann.com 421/[2024] 82 GSTL 169 (Kerala) (para 10)
- Commissioner Trade and Tax Delhi v. Shanti Kiran India (P.) Ltd. [2025] 179 taxmann.com 665 (SC) (para 10)
- Asstt. Commissioner of State Tax v. Suncraft Energy (P.) Ltd. [2023] 157 taxmann.com 352/[2024] 101 GST 308/80 GSTL 225 (SC) (para 10)
- On Quest Merchandising India (P.) Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi [2017] 87 taxmann.com 179/64 GST 623/[2018] 10 GSTL 182 (Delhi) (para 11).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied

CA | CS | CMA