GST Appellate Tribunal
Rulings of the GST Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, newest first.
7 rulings
GSTAT Bengaluru
Where consignor's goods were detained solely for e-way bill expiry due to a software error misreading destination, though all documents including correct invoices and lorry receipt were available, tax was charged and physical verification revealed no discrepancies or intent to evade, invoking detention and penalty under section 129 for this procedural lapse was invalid and demands were unsustainable
GSTAT Bengaluru
Where goods were intercepted while being unloaded at third-party premises without valid invoice or e-way bill covering such movement and fresh e-way bill was generated only post-interception without evidence of technical glitch, conduct indicated intent to evade tax and absence of mandatory documents during transit amounted to wilful contravention, justifying imposition of penalty under detention provisions
GSTAT Bengaluru
Where appellant, facing ITC mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, admitted oversight and paid tax with interest before SCN, but was issued SCN invoking Section 74 for suppression and penalized 100 percent, such invocation was unsustainable since no fraud, mis-statement or deliberate suppression was established and case fell under Section 73, rendering Section 74 action and penalty invalid
GSTAT Bengaluru
Where an assessee made pre-SCN payment of tax and interest for excess ITC and irregular TRAN-1 credit found in audit and there was no evidence of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression with intent, penalty under fraud provisions was not sustainable as mere audit detection does not amount to suppression, and voluntary payment warranted immunity from penalty under general provisions
GSTAT Bengaluru
Where final ITC demand under section 73 was confirmed under CGST and SGST heads on basis of a separate working treating ITC of 2018-19 as claimed in 2019-20, without explaining abandonment of primary IGST reconciliation or basis of computation, such demand was held unsustainable as adjudicating authority had failed to establish computation from books and records GST: Where ITC was denied merely on account of mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, authorities having failed to conduct any enquiry into concerned suppliers or their tax payments and having not properly examined appellant’s reconciliation, such mismatch could justify verification but could not by itself be treated as conclusive proof of wrongful availment of ITC GST: Where demand under section 73 was confirmed under CGST and SGST despite appellant’s reply and reconciliation being confined to IGST, and authorities failed to consider reconciliation or resolve inconsistency between two computations, demand was held unsustainable as appellant had not been given proper opportunity to contest CGST and SGST liability GST: Where for Financial Year 2019-20 mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A was alleged and demand was confirmed by adjudicating authority as well as first appellate authority, authorities having failed to establish breach of section 16(2)(c) and section 16(2)(aa) being inapplicable for the relevant period, impugned adjudication and appellate orders were to be set aside and matter was to be remanded for fresh adjudication strictly confined to show-cause notice GST: Where ITC dispute for Financial Year 2019-20 was decided against appellant for non-production of supplier certificates prescribed under CBI…
GSTAT Bengaluru
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 GST: 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 GST: 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
GSTAT Bengaluru
Where excess ITC was availed for first time in December 2020 and demand under section 73 arose from such availment, assessee could not claim waiver of interest and penalty under section 128A merely by contending that disputed ITC pertained to earlier period 2018-19, as demand was outside temporal scope of section 128A