The Madras High Court Division Bench has set aside a common assessment order confirming denial of ITC on the ground that the transactions were fictitious, holding that where the Assessing Authority finds the statements of two individuals credible enough to use as the foundation for adverse findings, it becomes incumbent upon the Authority to afford the assessee an opportunity to rebut those statements through cross-examination. The ruling by Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth and Justice S. Raveekumar in WA Nos. 2615, 2617 and 2616 of 2026 (Sheik Dawood / MNS Enterprises / Noordeen Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner CGST, Chennai, decided 07.09.2026) follows the Supreme Court’s ruling in Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015).
The appellants had submitted that the two individuals (Joseph Selvaraj and Joseph Selvaraj Alexander) had been coerced into deposing adversely, and had specifically requested cross-examination. The Assessing Authority denied the request, reasoning that the right is not absolute and that the individuals had not retracted before the ACMM. The Division Bench held that while the right to cross-examine is indeed not absolute in all cases, exceptions must be made where the Authority finds the statements credible and chooses to rely on them — it would have been different had the officer eschewed the statements. The matter was remanded for cross-examination and fresh assessment within eight weeks.
- 2026-juristway.com-2677-HC(Madras)-GST | High Court of Madras | WA Nos. 2615, 2617 & 2616 of 2026 | 07.09.2026