Difference in ITC between GSTR-9A and Audited Accounts: Madras HC Directs Fresh Verification of Dealer’s Reply [Read Order]
The Court noted that the entire disputed amount had already been recovered and, therefore, directed the assessing authority to reconsider the matter afresh after verifying the recovery.
The Madras High Court directed the assessing authority to hold a fresh verification of the dealer’s reply with regards to the difference in Input Tax Credit (ITC) figures reflected between Form GSTR-9A and the audited financial statements for FY 2018-2019.
The petitioner, Laxmi Jewellery Chennai Private Limited challenged the assessment order dated April 29, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST/CGST Act for the period 2018-2019, wherein the department confirmed tax liability on account of a “negative difference of tax” between Tables 8A and 8B of GSTR-9.
3000 Illustrations, Case Studies & Examples for Ind-AS & IFRS, Click Here
The department had alleged that the taxpayer claimed excess ITC of ₹40,57,038 as the GSTR-9 return reflected ₹12.44 crore against the audited ITC value of ₹12.03 crore, and that the petitioner failed to produce input registers to substantiate its claim.
The petitioner contended that the discrepancy was a mere clerical error in the annual return and that the corresponding tax amounts were already recovered post facto on October 23, 2024, and March 20, 2025.
Justice C. Saravanan observed that the petitioner’s reply dated January 3, 2024, had not been duly considered by the assessing authority while confirming the demand relating to the alleged discrepancy.
The Court noted that the entire disputed amount had already been recovered and, therefore, directed the assessing authority to reconsider the matter afresh after verifying the recovery.
The court ruled that “Considering the fact that the Petitioner's reply dated 03.01.2024 has not been fully considered in the impugned order while confirming the demand… and considering the fact that the entire disputed tax has been recovered, the case is remitted back to the Respondents to pass a fresh order subject to verification that the entire amount has been recovered.”
The Court further directed that if any portion of the amount was not recovered, the petitioner should deposit the same. With these observations, the writ petition was disposed of, and all connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
