GST Demand of Rs. 16.67Cr Mechanically Confirmed on Mismatch in ITC Claim: Madras HC Quashes Order [Read Order]
The demand had been affirmed in a mechanical manner, without due consideration of the appellant’s submissions or evidence, the Court ruled that the assessment order violated principles of natural justice.
![GST Demand of Rs. 16.67Cr Mechanically Confirmed on Mismatch in ITC Claim: Madras HC Quashes Order [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/06/19/2050620-madras-hc-gst-demand-mismatch-itc-taxscan.webp "GST Demand of Rs. 16.67Cr Mechanically Confirmed on Mismatch in ITC Claim: Madras HC Quashes Order [Read Order]")
The Madras High Court has set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand of ₹16.67 crore raised against a tollway company, holding that the proceedings were mechanical and failed to consider the assessee’s reply. The Division Bench, Justice G R Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar while allowing Writ Appeal, noted that the petitioner’s defences were not meaningfully evaluated by...
The Madras High Court has set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand of ₹16.67 crore raised against a tollway company, holding that the proceedings were mechanical and failed to consider the assessee’s reply.
The Division Bench, Justice G R Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar while allowing Writ Appeal, noted that the petitioner’s defences were not meaningfully evaluated by the proper officer before confirming the tax liability.
The dispute originated from a show cause notice issued on 13.05.2024, alleging mismatch in Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims. The appellant submitted a reply on 29.08.2024 and also appeared for a personal hearing.
Complete GST Act & Rules with amendments made by financial bill, 2025 - Click Here
Despite this, the officer passed an order on 10.09.2024 confirming the demand of ₹16.67 crore without proper reasoning. The relevant portion of the impugned order merely stated that the taxpayer had not provided “valid documents/supporting documents,” and hence, the demand proposed in the notice stood confirmed.
The petitioner challenged the assessment in a writ petition, but the single judge had relegated the appellant to the appellate remedy. Upon appeal, the bench found merit in the contention that the impugned order lacked application of mind.
Observing that the demand had been affirmed in a mechanical manner, without due consideration of the appellant’s submissions or evidence, the Court ruled that the assessment order violated principles of natural justice.
The Court accordingly quashed the order and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits.
The Writ Appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Step by Step Handbook for Filing GST Appeals - Click Here
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
