Merely pleading ignorance or lack of responsibility does not absolve a party from proving input tax credit claims when asked.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 20.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P(MD)No.11001 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD)No.8580 of 2026 Ramakrishnan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise Kalugumalai Range, No.913-C, Catholic Centre, Main Road, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

2.The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Madurai Commissioner, Madurai. ...Respondents Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent in his proceedings in order-in- original No.36/ SUPDT/ CGST/ 2023/ KALUGUMALAI RANGE/KPT.DIVISION, dated 14.11.2023 and quash the same as unconstitutional.

For Petitioner :Mr.C.Ezhilarasu For R1 & R2 :Mr.Gowri Shankar

ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

14.11.2023. The same is an order of assessment passed under section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017.

2.Upon noticing the discrepancy with reference to the input tax credit availed by the petitioner with reference to the certain transactions, it was found, prima facie, by the authorities that even though the petitioner claimed input tax credit with reference to certain transaction, the same was not reflected by the suppliers of the petitioner in their accounts. Therefore, when a show cause notice was issued, a reply was filed by the petitioner stating that he is not aware of the details and the person employed by him was only dealing with the issue. After considering the reply itself would amount to indirectly admitting the wrongful claim of input tax credit, and accordingly the Assessment is made.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier when the petitioner was running a cell phone shop, his business did not do well and has closed down the business and now, the petitioner is working as a coolie.

Further, he would submit that for the default of the suppliers of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be put to prejudice. The transaction actually happened and it is only the default of the suppliers not reporting the transaction.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the order is passed in the year 2023 and the petitioner did not also file an appeal in time and the same has become final.

5.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

6.It can be seen that the order is passed only because the suppliers of the petitioner have not reflected the transactions in their account. If the petitioner is sure that actually the transactions happened, it is for the petitioner to have proved it before the assessing authority, instead of producing those documents and taking such defence, the reply submitted by the petitioner only states that he has left it to an accountant and that person has not properly done the transactions.

7.Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that an opportunity can be granted to the petitioner further to prove his case. Considering the fact that it is stated that the petitioner has closed down the business and now working as a coolie. Even though this Court normally imposes a condition of 25% deposit for remitting the matter back, I am of the view that condition of 15% can be imposed in the instant case.

8.In view thereof, this Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms: (i)Within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order, the petitioner shall deposit 15% of the impugned tax demand alone.