GST Order Cannot Merely Copy Assessee’s Reply Without Analysis: Madras HC Sets Aside S. 74 Order [Read Order]
The order summarily concluded that the petitioner failed to furnish supporting documents and thus confirmed the demand without examining or analyzing the evidence submitted
![GST Order Cannot Merely Copy Assessee’s Reply Without Analysis: Madras HC Sets Aside S. 74 Order [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/06/26/2054750-gst-gst-order-gst-order-cannot-merely-copy-assessees-merely-copy-assessees-reply-without-analysis-taxscan.webp "GST Order Cannot Merely Copy Assessee’s Reply Without Analysis: Madras HC Sets Aside S. 74 Order [Read Order]")
The Madras High Court has set aside a demand order passed under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act, 2017, after finding that the order merely reproduced the assessee’s reply without any independent discussion or analysis by the adjudicating authority. A writ petition was filed by Tvl. SKP Readymix challenging the demand order dated 13.03.2025, which arose...
The Madras High Court has set aside a demand order passed under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act, 2017, after finding that the order merely reproduced the assessee’s reply without any independent discussion or analysis by the adjudicating authority.
A writ petition was filed by Tvl. SKP Readymix challenging the demand order dated 13.03.2025, which arose from allegations of (1) excess claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, (2) underreporting of outward supplies, and (3) availment of blocked credit under Section 17(5) of the GST Act.
The petitioner had admitted liability only in respect of the third issue and had also made partial payments and submitted supporting documents for the remaining issues.
Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here
However, upon examining the impugned order, Justice C. Saravanan observed that although the petitioner’s reply and submissions made during the personal hearing had been extracted in full, the adjudicating authority had failed to provide any proper discussion or reasoning on the merits of the issues raised.
The order summarily concluded that the petitioner failed to furnish supporting documents and thus confirmed the demand without examining or analyzing the evidence submitted.
The Court remarked that even if the authority had applied its mind, such application must be reflected through a reasoned and speaking order. Mere reproduction of the assessee’s reply without substantive analysis renders the order unsustainable in law.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the respondent authority for fresh adjudication with specific directions to pass a detailed order with proper discussion on the second and third issues.
The Court also instructed that the petitioner be granted a fair hearing and be allowed to submit all relevant documents. The fresh order is to be passed within three months from the receipt of the Court’s order.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
