2026-VIL-291-GSTAT-MUM
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-291-GSTAT-MUM

SGST Tribunal

GST - Rejection of first appeal as time barred - Mode of payment of pre-deposit under Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax dated 02.11.2023 - Appellant filed appeal within the extended window allowed by the Notification, with a pre-deposit of 12.5% of the tax in dispute paid wholly through the Electronic Credit Ledger, though at least 20% of it was to be paid through the Electronic Cash Ledger - Appellate Authority rejected the appeal as time barred and held that the delay could not be condoned whereas the Appellant contended that the defect in the mode of payment was curable - Whether a first appeal filed within limitation under the notification becomes time barred because 20% of the 12.5% was paid through the Electronic Credit Ledger - HELD - The Notification is an amnesty for appeals beyond the period under Section 107, so delay is the very premise on which it operates - The decisions relied on by the Appellate Authority concerned appeals filed beyond Section 107 and did not deal with the notification or the mode of payment of pre-deposit. Paragraph 3 of the notification regulates the quantum and mode of pre-deposit and does not prescribe limitation, which is provided in paragraph 2. Nothing in the notification treats a shortfall or use of the wrong ledger as making the appeal out of time, and reading such a consequence into it would add words to it - A curable deficiency in a payment accompanying a proceeding filed in time can be made good later. The condition is one of deposit and not of limitation. The payment of the cash component through the wrong ledger was a deviation in the mode of payment, not a defect of limitation - The Appellate Authority ought to have specified the deficiency and allowed an opportunity to make it good - The appeal was filed within the timeline of the notification and the rejection of the first appeal is set aside - Requirement of further payment of the cash component of the pre-deposit under the special procedure Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax - Whether the Appellant is now required to pay 20% of the 12.5% through the Electronic Cash Ledger to avail the benefit of the notification - HELD - The notification fixes the deposit at 12.5% of the tax in dispute, which was paid in full within the window. The amount debited to the Electronic Credit Ledger is not a mere book entry, as Section 49(4) permits tax payable as a result of proceedings to be paid from that ledger, which is a valid mode of pre-deposit under Section 107(6). Neither the Act nor the Rules prescribe payment of pre-deposit only through the Electronic Cash Ledger, and the condition arises only from the notification - A further cash deposit would raise the total pre-deposit beyond what the notification prescribes. Strict construction requires conditions to be read as written and forbids adding to them. No prejudice was caused to the Revenue, as it had also received an amount in cash at the stage of the second appeal, so the objective of the cash component stands secured - With reference to Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax, the deposit of 12.5% of the tax in dispute made through the Electronic Credit Ledger before the first appeal was filed, was a sufficient compliance of the requirement of 12.5% of disputed tax towards the pre deposit for the first appeal to be entertained, and that no further payment in cash is required, at this stage – Ordered accordingly - ITC of IGST paid on imported goods - Denial on mismatch with GSTR-2A or Table 8A of GSTR-9 and on supplier's failure to file GSTR-1 - Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 - The ex parte order confirmed the demand on the ground that the supplier neither paid the tax nor disclosed the supply in GSTR-1 - Whether ITC of IGST paid on imported goods, supported by bills of entry and reflected in GSTR-2A, can be denied on a mismatch with GSTR-2A or Table 8A of GSTR-9 or on the supplier's failure to file GSTR-1 - HELD - Rule 36(1)(d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 recognises the bill of entry as a document on the basis of which credit may be availed - The goods having been cleared for home consumption, indicates the payment of IGST. The tax on which credit is claimed has thus reached the Government in full. Even on the Respondent’s own test in section 16(2)(c), that the tax charged has been actually paid to the Government, the condition is satisfied - The credit was reported correctly, so there was no mismatch even on the method of the Respondent. The denial of ITC of IGST paid on imports is unsustainable and set aside. The demand of tax, interest and penalty is quashed and the appeal is allowed - Reporting of import credit under the head All other ITC instead of Import of goods in GSTR-3B - Effect on entitlement to ITC - For two months the IGST paid on imports was reported in row 4(A)(5) of GSTR-3B instead of row 4(A)(1), which the Appellant stated was a clerical error - Whether reporting of credit in row 4(A)(5) instead of row 4(A)(1) of GSTR-3B disentitles the availment of such credit - HELD - Where import credit is reported under All other ITC instead of Import of goods, it will necessarily appear as credit in excess of Table 8A of GSTR-9, though it is supported by bills of entry. The Circulars contemplate that IGST on imports is to be reported in row 4(A)(1) and that differences for the year 2018-19 are to be verified on facts. Such misreporting affects only the classification of the credit in the return and does not convert an eligible import credit into excess or ineligible credit.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST Adjudication & Appeals Reform
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?