E-Way Bill and GSTR-3B Mismatch| Allahabad High Court Stays Rs. 142 Crore GST Demand Against Oppo Mobiles

The Allahabad High Court has granted interim relief to a taxpayer in a significant Goods and Services Tax (GST) dispute involving a demand of nearly ₹142 Crores raised under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) on the basis of alleged mismatch between e-way bill data and GSTR-3B returns for Financial Years 2018–19 to 2020–21. The Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarapama Chaturvedi observed that the issue raised in the petition appeared to be “purely legal” and prima facie supported by the decisions of the Supreme Court cited before it. The Court further noted the jurisdictional defect highlighted by the petitioner while granting interim protection. The writ petition was filed before the High Court challenging the legality of the proceedings initiated by the GST Department under Section 74, which deals with cases involving fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. The Court, while entertaining the petition, issued notice to the Revenue authorities and stayed the operation and effect of the impugned order till the next date of listing. The matter arose out of a common audit objection dated June 20, 2023. According to the submissions made before the Court, the Department had initially issued a notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act for FY 2020–21 on November 29, 2024. However, no show cause notice had been issued for earlier financial years at that stage. Subsequently, relying upon the very same audit objection, the Department issued another notice on June 19, 2025 for FY 2018–19 and FY 2019–20, this time invoking Section 74 of the CGST Act and seeking to apply the extended period of limitation. Before the High Court, it was argued that the Department itself had treated the issue as falling under Section 73 for FY 2020–21, which pertains to cases not involving fraud or suppression. Therefore, invocation of Section 74 for the earlier years on the basis of the same audit objection was legally impermissible in the absence of any specific allegation or finding regarding fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The petitioner further contended that the very foundation of the demand was fundamentally flawed because the Department had compared e-way bill data with GSTR-3B returns without appreciating the conceptual distinction between the two. It was submitted that e-way bills reflect the gross movement of goods, whereas GSTR-3B returns disclose net taxable supplies after accounting for permissible adjustments such as credit notes and other statutory deductions. Consequently, any straight-line comparison between the two datasets would inevitably result in artificial mismatches and inflated tax demands. Reliance was also placed on several Supreme Court judgments including P & B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, ECE Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, and Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector of Central Excise, A.P., to argue that once the Department was aware of the relevant facts through audit proceedings, invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 74 could not be justified. Accordingly, the High Court ordered that till the next date of listing, the operation and effect of the impugned order shall remain stayed. The Revenue has been granted four weeks’ time to file its counter affidavit, while the petitioner has been allowed two weeks thereafter to file a rejoinder affidavit. Case Details Case Title: Oppo Mobiles Versus The Additional Commissioner Case No.: Writ Tax 1508/2026 Date: 15/04/2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Abhishek Gosh Counsel For Respondent: Dhananjaya Awasthi Click Here To Read Order Read More: Assessee Can’t Be Left Remediless Due To Improper Communication Of GST Order: Rajasthan High Court Condones Delay

E-Way Bill and GSTR-3B Mismatch| Allahabad High Court Stays Rs. 142 Crore GST Demand Against Oppo Mobiles

Membership Required

Latest articles

Calcined Kaolin Clay Can’t Be Classified as Chemically Defined Silicate: CESTAT

12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT

Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Misstates Limitation Period: CESTAT

Hiring of Diesel Generator Sets with Transfer of Possession and Effective Control Not Taxable as ‘Supply of Tangible Goods Service’: CESTAT

More like this

Calcined Kaolin Clay Can’t Be Classified as Chemically Defined Silicate: CESTAT

12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT

Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Misstates Limitation Period: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories