Madras High Court Grants Fresh Opportunity in GST ITC Mismatch Case:

The Madras High Court has set aside an ex-parte assessment order passed under the Tamil Nadu GST Act after observing input tax credit mismatch.
High Court Sets Aside Assessment Order Subject to 25% Tax Deposit

Madras High Court Grants Fresh Opportunity in GST ITC Mismatch Case
The Madras High Court has allowed a writ petition challenging an assessment order passed under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The petitioner is Tvl. Punitha Antony Store, which has assailed the assessment order dated 19 January 2026, contending that the demand had been passed ex parte owing to its inability to participate in the proceedings. The respondent had alleged excess availment of input tax credit amounting to Rs 3.27 lakh under CGST and SGST for the assessment year 2025-26 on account of a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A.
Before the High Court, the petitioner has submitted that the mismatch was because of errors committed by certain suppliers, who had mistakenly reported outward supplies as B2C transactions instead of B2B transactions. Consequently, the corresponding ITC failed to reflect properly in GSTR-2A despite the purchases being genuine.
After taking note of the nature of the dispute, the explanation offered on merits, and the reasons assigned for nonparticipation, the High Court held that the assessee ought to be afforded an opportunity to place the relevant documents before the assessing authority. The Court observed that such opportunities have been granted on equitable grounds in appropriate cases. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks from the receipt of the web copy of the order. Upon such deposit, the impugned assessment order dated 19 January 2026 shall stand set aside, and the matter shall stand remanded to the respondent for fresh adjudication.
The court has also directed the assessee to appear before the AO and submit its reply and supporting documents, whereupon the respondent shall pass orders afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed without any order as to costs.
About Author

Saima
Content Writer
Saima is a Law graduate with a passion for research and content writing. She writes for Finance, Taxation and Legal Updates at Studycafe.in, simplifying complex legal decisions by the ITAT, High Court, AAR and GSTAT into uncomplicated and clear explanations.
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
132My Recent Articles
- ITAT Holds Cost of Acquisition Cannot Be Taken as Nil Merely Because Old Records Are UnavailablePremium
- ITAT Holds Miscommunication Between Assessee and Counsel As Sufficient to Warrant Fresh Adjudication Premium
- ITAT Deletes Section 69A Addition on Demonetisation Cash Deposits Received by Co-operative Society from MembersPremium
- ITAT Holds Deposits in Foreign Companies’ Bank Accounts Cannot Be Taxed as Shareholder’s Unexplained Money Premium
- ITAT Upholds Taxation of Academic Consultancy Income under Section 44ADA Premium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts









