https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783581 The dominant issue was whether the demand confirming excess ITC denial under s.16(4) of the GST enactment, premised on non-reconciliation between GSTR-3B and other returns and passed ex parte for non-reply to the SCN, suffered from overlapping demand. The HC found a prima facie overlap in the demand confirmed by the impugned order and, to secure adjudication on merits while protecting revenue, directed the assessee to deposit 25% of the disputed tax under s.16(4) and file a reply within 30 days; upon compliance, the authority was ordered to pass a fresh merits order within three months and the bank account attachment would stand vacated; the writ was disposed of. en-us Mon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:01:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783581 The dominant issue was whether the demand confirming excess ITC denial under s.16(4) of the GST enactment, premised on non-reconciliation between GSTR-3B and other returns and passed ex parte for non-reply to the SCN, suffered from overlapping demand. The HC found a prima facie overlap in the demand confirmed by the impugned order and, to secure adjudication on merits while protecting revenue, directed the assessee to deposit 25% of the disputed tax under s.16(4) and file a reply within 30 days; upon compliance, the authority was ordered to pass a fresh merits order within three months and the bank account attachment would stand vacated; the writ was disposed of. Case-Laws GST Mon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783581