✅ Yes, says the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CTO
[WP(C) No. 11130 of 2025 | Order dated: 29.04.2025 | 2025 (5) TMI 726 – Karnataka HC]

📌 Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the SCN dated 26.11.2024 on 24.12.2024, explaining discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A using supporting documents like credit notes. However, the CTO passed the final order on 26.12.2024 without considering the reply or documents submitted.

⚖️ Court’s Observations:
➡️The order was passed mechanically without reference to the taxpayer’s reply.
➡️Failure to consider the credit note and reply amounts to a violation of natural justice.
➡️Relied on Madras HC’s ruling in Oasys Cybernetics Pvt. Ltd. (2024).
➡️Remanded the matter to the authority for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.

✍️ Author’s Comments:
✅While the remand is a procedural win, it prolongs litigation with no conclusive relief.
✅The petitioner could have challenged the very basis of SCN—i.e., GSTR-2A vs. GSTR-3B mismatch—as inadequate for alleging ineligible ITC.
✅Mere mismatch is not proof of evasion; burden lies on Revenue to establish inadmissibility with evidence.
✅Strategic litigation approach is key—assess whether to challenge via writ or appeal based on defects in the proceedings.