Blog Details

The Madras High Court primarily handled writ petitions concerning the cancellation of registrations, denials of input tax credit (ITC), and post-cancellation assessment orders.

1. Tvl. Fathima Traders vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
WP No. 22419/2023 | 12-Jun-2026
Issue: ITC was denied to the petitioner solely on the ground that the supplier’s GST registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017.

Order: On reconsideration, the ITC claim shall not be rejected solely because the supplier’s GST registration was retrospectively cancelled. A fresh assessment order shall be issued, after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity, within two months of receiving this order.
The Court held that an assessing officer must examine whether the recipient has established the supply of goods by submitting invoices, e-way bills, lorry receipts, and other evidence.

2. Tvl. P Balaji vs The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)
W.P(MD)No.15862/2026 | 12-Jun-2026
The Court entertained a writ petition challenging an assessment order under Section 73 because it did not properly consider the petitioner's reply and supporting documents.
The GST dispute on seigniorage fees is pending before the Supreme Court, and authorities must await its decision.

3. Tvl Sasi Gold Covering vs The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)
WP Nos. 21215 & 21219 of 2026 | 15-Jun-2026
The Court reviewed an assessment where the Tax Officer addressed each issue—under-declaration, excess ITC, and post-cancellation purchases—and made specific findings. It signaled that issue-wise scrutiny may stand, but a blanket ITC denial based only on supplier cancellation will be struck down.

The decisive factors for Madras HC in 2026 are:
(i) whether the assessing officer conducted an independent verification of the supply (invoices, e-way bills, transport documents);
(ii) whether the petitioner had replied to the show cause notice and was heard; and
(iii) whether the time limit for filing returns had been statutorily extended.

Where these factors point toward the taxpayer, the Court quashes the order and remands for fresh consideration, often with directions to consider the petitioner's documents afresh.

Conclusion:
Lack of Supply Evidence: If the taxpayer can’t produce e-way bills, lorry receipts, or payment records, the analysis changes because Tvl. Fathima Traders (2026) grants relief only when these documents are available.

Pre - Cancellation Date of Retrospective Effect: If the supplier’s registration was cancelled retrospectively before the transaction, the legal position is unclear. Most Madras cases involve deals after the effective cancellation date, so a cancellation covering the transaction date may need closer review.

Conceded Position by Revenue: In Tvl.Alpha Tech (2026), things were smooth because the department conceded. If Revenue disputes the amendment or facts, the taxpayer’s case is tougher.