IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. SARAVANAN, J.
GU Shipping India Pvt Ltd., Represented by its Director – Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Thuraipakkam Division, Chennai South Commissionerate, Chennai – Respondent
W.P.No.13829 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.15532 of 2025
Decided On : 27-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition background and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. confirmation of tax demands by the order. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. citations from precedents by the petitioner. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. respondent's arguments against the petitioner's claims. (Para 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. court's analysis of the case facts. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. ratio concerning unjust taxation in event of mistake. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. final ruling on remitting the case. (Para 40) |
ORDER :
C. SARAVANAN, J.
The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned Order in Original No.15/2025-GST-ADC dated 08.01.2025 passed by the respondent, whereby, the proposal in Show Cause Notice No.115/2024-GST(ADC) dated 25.07.2024 has been confirmed against the petitioner for the tax period 2017-2018 to 2022-2023. The Operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:-
“ORDER
i. I confirm the demand of Rs.22,65,05,082/- (IGST Rs.22,65,05,082/-) (Rupees Twenty-two Crore sixty-five lakh five thousand and eighty two only) as discussed in Para 7 above in terms of Section 74(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with similar provision of the TNGST Act, 2017 made applicable to IGST vide Section 20 f the IGST Act, 2017.
ii. I confirm the demand of appropriate interest on the demand confirmed under Sl.No.(i) above and order for recovery of the same in terms of Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with similar provision of the TNGST Act, 2017 and made applicable to IGST vide Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017.
iii. I impose penalty on the taxpayer for an amount of Rs.22,65,05,082/- (Rupees Twenty-two Crore sixty-five lakh five thousand and eighty two only) on the demand confirmed under Sl.No.(i) above in terms of Section 74(9) of the CGST Act, 2017, r/w Section 122(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 along with similar provision of the TNGST Act, 2017 and made applicable to IGST vide Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017.
iv. I confirm the demand of Rs.6,05,40,252/- (IGST Rs.6,05,40,252/-) (Rupees Six Crore five lakh forty thousand two hundred and fifty two only) as discussed in Para 7 above in terms of Section 74(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 r/w similar provision of the TNGST Act, 2017 made applicable to IGST vide Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017.
v. I confirm the demand of appropriate interest on the demand confirmed under Sl.No.(iv) above and order for recovery of the same in terms of Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with similar provision of the TNGST Act, 2017 and made applicable to IGST vide Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017.
vi. I impose penalty on the taxpayer for an amount of Rs.6,05,40,252/-(Rupees Six Crore five lakh forty thousand two hundred and fifty two only) on the demand confirmed under Sl.No.(iv) above in terms of Section 74(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 r/w Section 122(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 along with similar provision of the TNGST Act, 2017 and made applicable to IGST vide Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017.
2. The breakdown of the above demand confirmed by the impugned Order-in-Original is as under:-

3. A part of the demand covered by Clauses I, II and III is as under:
“i. I confirm the demand of Rs. 22,65,05,082/- (IGST Rs.22,65,05,082/-) (Rupees twenty-two crore sixty-five lakh five thousand and eighty-two only) as discussed in Para 7 above in terms of Section 74(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with similar provision of the TNGST Act, 2017 made applicable to IGST vide Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017.
ii. I confirm the demand of appropriate interest on the demand confirmed under Sl. No. (i) above and order for recovery of the same in terms of Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with similar provision of the TNGST Act, 2017 and made applicable to IGST vide Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017.
iii. I impose penalty on the taxpayer for an amount of Rs. 22,65,05,082/- (Rupees twenty-two crore sixty-five lakh five thousand and eighty-two only) on the demand confirmed under Sl. No. (i) above in terms of Section 74(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with read with Section 122(2)(b) of the CG











Compliance with notification conditions for availing input tax credit is essential; failure leads to denial of benefits and imposition of penalties.
Tax authorities must provide substantial evidence of fraud or suppression of facts before imposing penalties under Sections 74 and 50, especially when input tax credit has already been reversed volun....
The court ruled that inadvertent misclassification of IGST as CGST and SGST does not constitute excess credit utilization, especially when no revenue loss occurs.
Taxpayers must be granted an opportunity to rectify bona-fide clerical errors in tax filings. Furthermore, remedial legislative amendments that extend deadlines for claiming input tax credit are appl....
The denial of Input Tax Credit requires verification of the supplier's tax payment, and unilateral action against the recipient without such verification is arbitrary.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.