https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784623 The dominant issue was whether the demand invoking the extended limitation under s.74 of the TNGST Act, premised on mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, could stand when the SCN and reasoning were unclear. The HC held that determination of extended limitation and tax liability required a proper merits reply by the taxpayer, combined with legal submissions, which had not been adequately placed before the authority. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted to the assessing authority for fresh consideration, subject to the taxpayer depositing 10% of the disputed tax from the electronic cash ledger within 30 days; the writ petition was disposed of. en-us Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jan 2026 08:22:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784623 The dominant issue was whether the demand invoking the extended limitation under s.74 of the TNGST Act, premised on mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, could stand when the SCN and reasoning were unclear. The HC held that determination of extended limitation and tax liability required a proper merits reply by the taxpayer, combined with legal submissions, which had not been adequately placed before the authority. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted to the assessing authority for fresh consideration, subject to the taxpayer depositing 10% of the disputed tax from the electronic cash ledger within 30 days; the writ petition was disposed of. Case-Laws GST Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784623