<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (6) TMI 1208 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793827</link>
    <description>Interest under Section 50(3) of the Tamil Nadu GST Act read with Rule 88B(3) was held leviable where input tax credit was wrongly availed and utilised due to a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. The provision was treated as distinct from Section 50(1): it applies specifically to wrong availment and utilisation of credit, and the phrase is not limited to fraudulent or bad-faith conduct. Rule 88B(3) governs computation from the date of utilisation until reversal or payment. On the facts, the credit had already been utilised against other dues before actual set-off, so the assessment applying interest was sustained and no Article 226 interference was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2026 07:08:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=908369" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 1208 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793827</link>
      <description>Interest under Section 50(3) of the Tamil Nadu GST Act read with Rule 88B(3) was held leviable where input tax credit was wrongly availed and utilised due to a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. The provision was treated as distinct from Section 50(1): it applies specifically to wrong availment and utilisation of credit, and the phrase is not limited to fraudulent or bad-faith conduct. Rule 88B(3) governs computation from the date of utilisation until reversal or payment. On the facts, the credit had already been utilised against other dues before actual set-off, so the assessment applying interest was sustained and no Article 226 interference was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793827</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>