2026-VIL-138-GSTAT-RPR
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-138-GSTAT-RPR

SGST Tribunal

GST – Availment of excess credit in Form GSTR-3B over Form GSTR-2A - Role of Sections 16 and 155 and Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST – Appellant was alleged to have availed excess IGST credit in Form GSTR-3B compared with Form GSTR-2A – Appellant obtained supplier certificate stating that three invoices were inadvertently reported as B2C instead of B2B in GSTR-1 - Appellant relied on the Circular and the supplier certificate, while the Respondent relied on Section 155 and the burden of proof - Whether the disputed credit can be denied merely because it is absent from GSTR-2A and whether the supplier certificate, invoices, ledger and transport material prove the asserted reporting error and payment of tax - HELD - For FY 2018-19, credit could not be denied merely because an invoice did not appear in GSTR-2A, as clause (aa) of Section 16(2) was not in force, and an old-period mismatch requires examination of underlying eligibility. However, Section 155 places the burden of proving eligibility on the person claiming credit, and a mismatch, once put to the claimant, requires the claimant to place material to establish the credit - The Circular applies in principle where an invoice bearing the recipient's GSTIN was wrongly reported as B2C, and the supplier certificate for differences up to the specified limit is contemplated, without making supplier's GSTR-1 data or ledgers an additional mandatory condition, but the certificate is evidentiary material and not a statutory deeming provision or irrebuttable - The certificate was obtained after the proceedings had commenced, was not tendered before the adjudicating authority - No contemporaneous material explained how invoices bearing the recipient's GSTIN came to be classified as B2C. The e-way bill corroborated only movement and identity of the recipient and not the supplier's return classification or payment of tax - The decisions relied upon by the Appellant are distinguished as there the taxpayer had replied and placed material before the authority - The Appellant failed to discharge the burden and the demand of tax on the three invoices is sustained – The appeal is dismissed - Unexplained residual difference and set-off of overall credit across tax heads - Appellant's three invoices accounted for an amount lower than the disputed IGST credit - Appellant contended that credit under CGST and SGST heads was lower than in GSTR-2A so that overall credit was not excessive - Whether the residual difference is explained and whether the overall credit position answers the excess integrated tax claim - HELD - The residual amount was not supported by any identified invoice, supplier certificate or transaction-wise explanation. Rule 36 and Section 155 require documentary foundation for the credit claimed, and the difference cannot be described as minor to obtain relief - Integrated, Central and State taxes are distinct statutory tax heads subject to the utilisation mechanism under Sections 49 and 49A, and a shortfall under one head cannot as arithmetic extinguish excess credit under another unless the same transactions and a legally permissible head-wise reconciliation are shown, which was not established. The demand to that extent independently survives - Non-consideration of documentary evidence, additional evidence and remand before the Tribunal - Appellant did not place documents before the adjudicating authority, filed them with the first appeal, did not appear on either date of personal hearing before the appellate authority, and pleaded violation of natural justice and sought remand - Whether the grievance of non-consideration of evidence is made out and whether remand is warranted - HELD - The adjudicating authority cannot be faulted for not considering material which had not been placed before it - The appellate authority was empowered under Section 107(11) to make further inquiry but was expressly prohibited from remanding the case - Uploading of documents after the order, would not amount to admission of additional evidence. Additional evidence is not a device to fill an evidentiary lacuna after the hearing has exposed it - The Tribunal has wider powers under Section 113 including remand, but the power is discretionary and to be exercised where further factual inquiry is necessary for a fair decision, and does not require repeated opportunities to a party which failed to use opportunities already afforded - The Appellant was heard at length and given a further opportunity, the available documents were assessed on merits, and remand is not warranted - Interest and penalty on wrongly availed input tax credit - Appellant challenged interest and penalty as consequential to the disputed principal demand - Whether interest and penalty call for interference - HELD - Interest is payable under Section 50(3) read with Rule 88B(3) where credit has been wrongly availed and utilised; as the utilisation of the disputed credit was not disputed and the Appellant neither raised a specific objection to the period or calculation of interest nor furnished any alternative computation, the interest is sustained - The adjudication being under Section 73, which provides for penalty equivalent to ten per cent of tax or the specified minimum, whichever is higher, the penalty corresponds to the statutory minimum and, as the principal demand is sustained, calls for no interference - The appeal is dismissed and the demand of tax, interest and penalty confirmed by the appellate authority is upheld.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST & Customs updates: Sep'26
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?