https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95176 Excess ITC was denied under Section 16(4) due to non-reconciliation between GSTR-3B and related disclosures, and the taxpayer had not responded to the show cause notice. The Court found a prima facie overlap in the demand confirmed in the impugned order and, to prevent unjust duplication while ensuring revenue protection, directed the taxpayer to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and file a reply within 30 days. Upon such compliance, the adjudicating authority was directed to pass a fresh order on merits within three months and the bank account attachment would stand vacated; the petition was disposed. - HC en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:02:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:02:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95176 Excess ITC was denied under Section 16(4) due to non-reconciliation between GSTR-3B and related disclosures, and the taxpayer had not responded to the show cause notice. The Court found a prima facie overlap in the demand confirmed in the impugned order and, to prevent unjust duplication while ensuring revenue protection, directed the taxpayer to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and file a reply within 30 days. Upon such compliance, the adjudicating authority was directed to pass a fresh order on merits within three months and the bank account attachment would stand vacated; the petition was disposed. - HC Highlights GST Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:02:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95176