Division Bench including Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice S. Srimathy, related to W.A.(MD) No. 977 of 2025, filed by M/s Nikitha Traders, a proprietary concern represented by Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain. The appeal contested the dismissal of a previous writ petition (W.P.(MD) No. 6487 of 2025) by a single judge of the High Court. The Case”

[30/03, 13:58] sekarreporter1: “Division Bench including Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice S. Srimathy, related to W.A.(MD) No. 977 of 2025, filed by M/s Nikitha Traders, a proprietary concern represented by Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain. The appeal contested the dismissal of a previous writ petition (W.P.(MD) No. 6487 of 2025) by a single judge of the High Court.

The Case”

Madras HC Dismisses GST Writ on GSTR-2A vs 3B ITC Mismatch, Cites Appeal Route

[30/03, 13:58] sekarreporter1: 👍
[30/03, 13:58] Meta AI: The Madras High Court’s Division Bench, comprising Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice S. Srimathy, dismissed a writ appeal filed by M/s Nikitha Traders, citing the availability of a statutory appeal route. The appeal challenged a single judge’s dismissal of a writ petition (W.P.(MD) No. 6487 of 2025) related to a GST demand and penalty order due to a mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B returns. ¹

The court emphasized that the appellant should pursue the statutory appeal process under Section 107 of the CGST Act, rather than invoking writ jurisdiction. The appellant had argued that the mismatch was an error from wrong return filing and could be rectified.

The court extended the time for the appellant to submit a statutory appeal by 15 days, ensuring the right to appeal wasn’t extinguished. If the appeal is submitted within this period and disposed of on merits within three months, the appellate authority can entertain it.

Would you like to know more about the implications of this ruling or the process for filing a statutory appeal?