Input tax credit scrutiny required fresh examination of returns, GSTR-2A, and the statutory time limit.

Wrongful availment of input tax credit had been found, but fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression, or intent to evade tax was not established. The Court noted that the appellate order had not properly examined the statutory requirements for input tax credit, the relevant returns, GSTR-2A, and the extended time limit for availing credit. On that basis, the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration and a new order after applying the relevant statutory provisions and record material.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate order treating the case as one falling under the regular tax-levy provision instead of the fraud-based provision required reconsideration, and whether the applicability of the extended time limit for availing input tax credit had to be examined in the light of the returns and GSTR-2A.

Analysis: The appellate authority had found wrongful availment of input tax credit but had also recorded that fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression, or intent to evade tax was not established. The order, however, was passed without proper consideration of the statutory requirements governing input tax credit and without due regard to the returns filed for the relevant period and the extended cutoff date. The material placed before the Court warranted fresh examination by the appellate authority on the record, including GSTR-2A and the statutory time prescription.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration and a new order after examining the relevant statutory provisions and materials.

---