By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 18 March 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice — see our disclaimer
The Rule That Catches Compliant Businesses Off Guard
Under Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, a buyer's entitlement to Input Tax Credit depends not just on holding a valid invoice and receiving the goods or services, but on the supplier actually having deposited the collected tax with the government. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of this provision, dismissing challenges that sought to decouple a buyer's ITC entitlement from the supplier's own compliance.
The provision was originally designed to close a specific fraud pattern — buyers claiming credit for tax that was never actually paid to the exchequer, often in collusion with a shell-company supplier. The difficulty is that the same provision, as upheld, also catches entirely innocent buyers who had no way of knowing their supplier would default on payment after issuing a genuine invoice for a genuine transaction.
Why This Matters More Than It Might Seem To
The uncomfortable implication is that a completely compliant buyer — correct invoice, genuine transaction, timely payment — can still lose ITC because a supplier further up the chain failed to deposit collected tax. From the buyer's perspective, this can feel deeply unfair, since the buyer has no direct control over the supplier's own tax filings. But the law, as currently upheld, places that risk on the buyer.
This risk compounds for businesses with a large or fragmented supplier base, where the practical ability to monitor every supplier's ongoing compliance is limited. It is a particular concern for manufacturers and traders in Noida, Delhi NCR and Kolkata who rely on a wide network of smaller vendors, some of whom may have less sophisticated compliance systems than larger suppliers.
What Businesses Can Actually Do About It
Since you can't control your suppliers' internal compliance, the practical response is proactive vetting: check a supplier's GST filing history and compliance rating before onboarding them for significant volumes, build contractual indemnities for ITC denial into supply agreements where leverage allows, and reconcile ITC claims regularly against the GST portal rather than waiting for a denial notice to discover a mismatch.
A contractual indemnity clause — obligating the supplier to compensate the buyer for any ITC denied due to the supplier's non-compliance — will not stop a tax authority from denying the credit in the first place, but it does give the buyer a civil remedy against the supplier once that happens, which is considerably better than absorbing the loss with no recourse at all.
A Broader Pattern Worth Watching
This isn't an isolated rule — GST enforcement more broadly has moved toward holding the entire supply chain accountable for compliance gaps anywhere in it, rather than treating each transaction in isolation. Businesses that build supplier compliance into their vendor onboarding and monitoring processes now will be far less exposed as this enforcement pattern continues.
This pattern is visible elsewhere in recent GST jurisprudence too — from the Supreme Court's confirmation that 28% GST applies to the full face value of bets on online gaming platforms (rejecting a narrower revenue-based argument), to continuing litigation over classification and valuation disputes. The common thread is a judiciary and revenue administration that is, on balance, reading GST provisions in favour of robust tax collection over taxpayer-friendly interpretations where the statutory language allows either reading.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I get ITC back if it's denied due to a supplier's non-payment?
Recovery generally requires pursuing the supplier directly (contractually or otherwise) — the buyer's ITC claim itself remains conditional on the supplier's tax payment under the upheld provision.
How can I check a supplier's GST compliance before onboarding them?
GST compliance ratings and filing history are available through the GST portal and can be checked as part of vendor due diligence before entering into a significant supply relationship.
Does this rule apply to all types of GST-registered transactions?
Section 16(2)(c) applies broadly to ITC claims under the CGST Act — businesses across sectors relying on ITC should treat supplier compliance as a standing risk factor, not a one-time check.
References & Further Reading
This article references the following statutes, rules and judicial decisions. Case citations link to the fuller discussion in our Legal Updates archive, verified against primary sources at the time of writing.
- Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Section 16(2)(c) (conditions for claiming Input Tax Credit).
- Supreme Court ruling (2026) affirming the Gujarat High Court's judgment upholding the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c); see our Tax Litigation Notable Judgments.
- Supreme Court ruling (May 2026) upholding 28% GST on the full face value of online gaming bets.
- See also our Legal Updates — Tax & GST archive.