Case Details: S. Umashankar vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Chennai (2026) 39 Centax 200 (Mad.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- C. Saravanan, J.
- Shri P. Jitendra Kumar, for the Petitioner.
- Ms Amirtha Poonkodi Dinakaran, Govt. Adv., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged assessment orders and the rejection of rectification applications under the Tamil Nadu GST Act. The assessee was issued a show cause notice (SCN) alleging wrongful availing of input tax credit (ITC) on invoices issued by non-existing dealers and failed to file a reply to the notice. Subsequently, an order was passed under Form GST DRC-07 in accordance with Section 74 of the CGST Act. It was contended that the supplies were made by the suppliers and that the goods had been actually received. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the e-way bills alone were insufficient to substantiate the actual receipt of goods and services, and that delivery challans, receipts, and other documents were required to prove physical receipt of goods. Since the petitioner failed to reply to the SCN issued under Section 74. The Court noted that the petitioner’s application for rectification under Section 161 had been rightly rejected. However, liberty to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority was granted under Section 107.
