Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeGSTMadras High Court Stay on AAR Ruling Denying ITC for IGST Paid...

Madras High Court Stay on AAR Ruling Denying ITC for IGST Paid via TR-6 Challan in Related Party Import Transactions

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Madras High Court has stayed the ruling by the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) which denied the Input Tax Credit (ITC) for IGST Paid via TR-6 challan in related party import transactions.

The bench of Justice G.R. Swamynathan has observed that during the assessment (Customs) SVB has instructed to pay the additional customs duty  and pay the IGST on import of service The same has been remitted thru TR6 challan to customs. Subsequently AAR has come from Madras stating that payment to customs via TR6 challan is not prominent documents to avail ITC under IGST with the GST department.

The Petitioner, Data Pattern India Ltd. was a dealer with GST registration has imported the goods and availed services (related parties transaction).

The petitioner stated that he had already paid IGST on import through TR 6 Challan, also called as a Treasury Receipt. The grievance of the petitioner is that this document has not been recognized by the respondents and that has led to the passing of the order.

“Since recovery proceedings are in the offing, I grant an order interim stay till the filing of the counter and for a further period of two weeks after filing of the counter by the respondents. It is for the petitioner to obtain extension of the interim order thereafter,” the court said.

Case Details

Case Title: Data Patterns India Versus Joint Commissioner of Central Tax 

Case No.: WP No. 18161/2025

Date: 16/05/2025

Counsel For Petitioner: Nithyesh Natraj

Counsel For Respondent: S.M. Deenadayalan

Read More: Selling Dealer Is Responsible To Pay Tax Not The Buyer: Supreme Court

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Rs. 1.10 Crore GST Refund Must Be Paid in Cash After Business Closure: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has directed the tax authorities to pay a GST refund...

Hospitals Can’t Retain Customs Duty Exemption Without Meeting Free Treatment Conditions: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has upheld the recovery...

Later DRC-01, DRC-07 Dates Alone Can’t Make GST Proceedings Time-Barred: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that later dates appearing on Forms GST DRC-01...

Rs. 1,021 Crore Tax Addition Against Harshad Mehta Deleted Over Errors In Securities Transactions: ITAT

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, has deleted a ₹1,021.33 crore addition relating...

More like this

Rs. 1.10 Crore GST Refund Must Be Paid in Cash After Business Closure: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has directed the tax authorities to pay a GST refund...

Hospitals Can’t Retain Customs Duty Exemption Without Meeting Free Treatment Conditions: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has upheld the recovery...

Later DRC-01, DRC-07 Dates Alone Can’t Make GST Proceedings Time-Barred: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that later dates appearing on Forms GST DRC-01...