The Bombay High Court quashed orders that denied credit for ₹1.19 crore of import tax missing from the portal, holding a firm cannot suffer for lapses in systems the authorities control.
The Bombay High Court has set aside an adjudication order and an appellate order that denied input tax credit (ITC) of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid on imports, holding that the denial rested solely on the IGST not appearing on the GST portal because of a failure of integration between ICEGATE and GSTN. [Maksur Analytical Systems v. Union of India & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3273-HC(Bombay)-GST]
A Division Bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil decided the writ petition, with Justice Sandesh D. Patil writing the judgment. The petitioner had paid IGST of ₹1,19,38,621 on imports at the point of entry during 2019-20 and sought a direction to the respondents, including the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), to reconcile the amount and reflect it in its Electronic Credit Ledger.
The petitioner argued that IGST paid on imports must be transmitted electronically from ICEGATE to the GST portal, and that a glitch between the two systems kept the amount from showing. In reply to a discrepancy notice for 2019-20, it had furnished the Bills of Entry and reconciliation statements, yet the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority ruled against it by orders dated 29 Aug 2024 and 29 Jan 2026. It contended that it faced a double burden of paying tax at import and then losing the matching credit, and relied on Amar Iron Udyog Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2026).
The Revenue opposed the petition, contending that the impugned order was passed in accordance with law and required no interference.
The Court found that the non-reflection was, prima facie, the result of a failure of integration between two electronic systems maintained and controlled by the respondent authorities, in which the petitioner admittedly had no role. It held: “The Petitioner therefore cannot be made to suffer for technical or systematic lapses attributable to the Authorities themselves.” Since the orders rested solely on non-reflection of IGST on the portal and the petitioner had produced documents supporting payment of tax, they were held unsustainable on their face.
Both orders were quashed, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision with liberty to the petitioner to place all its documents. The respondents were directed to reconcile and give due consideration to the IGST of ₹1,19,38,621 by reflecting it in the petitioner’s Electronic Credit Ledger on the GSTN portal. The Court clarified that it had not gone into the merits and that all contentions remain open.
2026-juristway.com-3273-HC(Bombay)-GST
