UltraTech Cement Limited has disclosed that it has received two separate orders from the Assistant Commissioner of State Goods and Services Tax (SGST), Trichy, Tamil Nadu, confirming substantial GST demands relating to alleged excess availment of input tax credit (ITC) in past financial years.
The disclosure was made under Regulation 30 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, and was communicated to stock exchanges on January 30, 2026.
As per the company’s disclosure, the GST authority has passed Orders-in-Original confirming tax, interest and penalty for two different financial years.
For FY 2022–23, the Assistant Commissioner has confirmed a tax demand of ₹10.68 crore, along with interest of ₹5.34 crore and a penalty of ₹10.68 crore, aggregating to over ₹26.70 crore. The demand has been raised on the allegation that UltraTech availed excess ITC while filing its GST returns for the said year.
In a separate order relating to FY 2020–21, the authority has confirmed a tax demand of ₹4.57 crore, along with interest of ₹3.93 crore and a penalty of ₹4.57 crore, taking the total exposure in this matter to nearly ₹13.08 crore. This demand is also based on alleged excess ITC availment in GST returns.
Both orders were received by the company on January 29, 2026.
UltraTech Cement has stated that it intends to contest both GST demands and does not expect the orders to have any material financial impact on its operations or financial position. The company has not accepted the allegations and is likely to pursue remedies available under GST law, including appellate proceedings
Excess ITC availment remains one of the most actively scrutinised issues under the GST regime, with tax authorities frequently examining reconciliation between returns, invoices and supplier data. Orders confirming tax, interest and equal penalty indicate invocation of stringent provisions under GST law, though such demands are commonly challenged in appeal.
The matter will now likely move into the appellate stage, where UltraTech’s eligibility to claim the disputed ITC will be judicially examined.
Read More: CENVAT Credit Can’t Be Denied Merely Because Expenses Are Booked at Head Office: CESTAT
