High Court of Madras
Jayashree Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
For revenue
WP NO. 19835 OF 2026
High Court of Madras
WP NO. 19835 OF 2026
Where assessee was found to have availed and utilized ineligible ITC due to discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, interest under specific provision at 24 percent was rightly imposed from date of utilization till reversal, as utilization through credit ledger attracted liability regardless of cash payment argument, rendering general interest provisions inapplicable and justifying impugned order
Section 50 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 88B of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.
Members
The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.
Free to join. No card required.
Already a member? Sign in
Telangana High Court
Where tax liability declared in GSTR-1 for December 2018 was discharged only upon filing GSTR-3B in October 2019 though corresponding amount had already been deposited in Electronic Cash Ledger, mere deposit was held not to constitute payment as appropriation occurred only upon debit towards identified liability, consequently intervening period was liable to interest and plea of portal glitches being unsubstantiated did not alter statutory consequence
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where registered person deposited self-assessed tax belatedly and interest was demanded by authority without initiation of section 73 proceedings, waiver of interest under section 128A was not available since circular permitted waiver only where section 73 was invoked, and self-assessed tax interest liability under section 50 read with section 75(12) was directly recoverable with no scope for waiver in such cases. GST: Where petitioner sought waiver of interest for delayed deposit of self-assessed tax citing discrimination under Article 14, since benefit under waiver scheme applied only to disputed tax arising from section 73 proceedings and not to self-assessed tax, classification between disputed and self-assessed tax was valid, denial of waiver to petitioner was justified and Article 14 challenge was not sustainable
Madras High Court
Where petitioner discharged entire admitted tax before notified date but missed prescribed time limit for amnesty scheme application seeking waiver of interest and penalty, such time limit is mandatory and not directory, yet, in interest of justice, due to full tax payment and revenue protection, ex parte order was set aside and matter remanded for reconsideration after granting reasonable opportunity