Case Details: Elgi Sauer Compressors Ltd. vs. State Tax Officer (2026) 38 Centax 102 (Mad.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- C. Saravanan, J.
- Shri G. Vardini Karthik, for the Petitioner.
- Ms. P.Selvi, Govt. Adv. (tax), for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner-assessee challenged an order confirming demand on account of denial of input tax credit arising from mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, contending that invocation of extended period under section 74 was unsustainable and that the show cause notice was vague and based solely on an audit report. It was submitted that the mismatch had occurred due to technical glitches and lack of synchronization between the GST portal and the Icegate portal, particularly affecting Integrated Goods and Services Tax transactions, which resulted in difficulty in reflecting eligible input tax credit. It was further submitted that the proceedings were barred by limitation and that the demand was confirmed without proper appreciation of these aspects. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the petitioner-assessee had confined its reply to limited legal submissions and had not addressed the allegations in the show cause notice on merits, leaving the adjudicating authority with no option but to confirm the demand. The Court held that in such circumstances, the challenge to the proceedings on the ground of limitation under section 74 could not be sustained. However, the Court held that since the petitioner-assessee had approached the High Court without undue delay after the impugned order, the matter deserved reconsideration. The Court held that the impugned order was liable to be quashed and the matter remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication under section 16 read with section 74 of the CGST Act and the Tamil Nadu GST Act, subject to deposit of 10 per cent of the disputed tax from the Electronic Cash Register within the stipulated period.
