HC Upholds Excess ITC Demand on GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A Mismatch

Case Details: Meethal Thotty Ahamedali vs. State Tax Officer [2026] 185 taxmann.com 768 (Kerala)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.
• Smt. K. Krishna, Achyuth Menon & Smt. Anna Anto, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Smt. Reshmitha R. Chandran, Sr. G.P. & P. Anirudhan, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged an order confirming demand towards excess input tax credit (ITC) on account of a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A for the relevant period. A notice under ASMT-10 was initially issued, pointing out discrepancies in the return filed, including differences between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, to which the petitioner sought time to submit a reply. Subsequently, a SCN was issued and an adjudication order confirming demand was passed. The petitioner contended that tax had been duly paid in respect of all transactions. It was further submitted that later certificates were obtained from suppliers confirming payment of tax along with relevant transaction details, which required reconsideration of the demand. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the records disclosed serious lapses on the part of the petitioner in not responding appropriately to statutory notices issued under Section 73 of the CGST and Kerala GST Act read with Section 16 and in not furnishing required invoice-wise details during assessment proceedings. The Court observed that although the petitioner sought to rely on certificates issued by suppliers confirming payment of tax, such material was not produced within the permissible assessment stage, despite the adequate opportunity granted under the statutory scheme governing adjudication under Section 73. It was further held that the said certificates were obtained much later, and the writ petition itself was filed after an inordinate delay, thereby attracting the principle of finality of assessment under the GST framework and limiting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was concluded that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked.

List of Cases Referred to

• M. Trade Links v. Union of India [2024] 163 taxmann.com 218/87 GSTL 4 (Kerala) (para 3)
• Nahasshukoor v. Asstt. Commissioner [2023] 157 taxmann.com 648/[2024] 81 GSTL 384 (Kerala) (para 6).