The ruling in brief
Where assessee claimed ITC on 2017-18 invoices in 2018-19 which matched legal timeline, and denial was based only on GSTR-2A non-reflection without verifying supplier payment or invoices, such denial was unsustainable because GSTR-2A was merely facilitative and demand could not be sustained without proper invoice-wise verification as per statutory circular
Where assessee was proceeded for excess ITC due to GSTR-3B versus GSTR- 2A mismatch and Order-in-Original was passed without granting personal hearing as required when adverse decision was contemplated, absence of such hearing itself vitiated order, rendering it unsustainable in law and necessitating its setting aside
Where assessee faced demand for excess ITC based on GSTR-3B and GSTR- 2A mismatch, and proceedings were initiated directly based on audit reference with proper demand notices but without scrutiny notice in ASMT-10, absence of ASMT-10 notice did not invalidate proceedings as demand initiation was independent of return scrutiny, thus, issue was answered against assessee
Provisions considered
Section 16 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 36 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017; Section 75, read with section 73, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 73, read with section 61, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 99, read with rule 142, of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.