Any clerification from the CBIC regarding non auto populated of input of ISD distribution in 2A

[Tikam Gupta]

Dear Sir/Madam,

We got the SCN U/S 73 from the department for FY 2017-18 regarding the excess claim of input GST in 3B as compared to 2A. Actually, The difference amount pertains to the ISD distribution which was distributed to various branches in 2017-18 but at that time it was not auto-populated in GSTR 2A. Now the Officer is asking for any clarification/press release/circular issued by the department mentioning that ISD is not auto-populating or would start auto-populated in 2A. We want to avoid sharing GSTR 6 return copies with him.

If someone knows about any clarification from the department, please share it with me.

Thanks

[KASTURI SETHI]

As per Section 155 of CGST Act, the burden of proof is cast upon the person availing credit. It is regarding genuineness of transaction. You have taken credit of input service on the basis of books of accounts which are a statutory records. You are to conform to the parameters laid down in Sections 16 & 17 of CGST Act and Rules 39(1)(d) & 54 (1) of CGST Rules. In case this availment of credit is in letter and spirit of CGST Act and Rules, it is not your responsibility to trace out any authority regarding the date of commencement of auto-populating 2 A on Common Portal System. Your first duty is to comply with the Act & the Rules regarding availment of ITC. You are not responsible for any disharmony between Act and Common Portal system.

Emphasis is on genuineness of transaction.

[Amit Agrawal]

With regards to your comments 'We want to avoid sharing GSTR 6 return copies with him', it appears to me that difference in ITC (as alleged in SCN already issued) is on account to some different reason thant what is projected by you before the original adjudicating authority.

I strongly feel that you should not defend the case by misrepresenting / twisting facts. It is worth noting that remaining silent and misrepresenting / twisting facts are very different things.

You should defend the case based on merits by applying legal provisions for material period under dispute in given "facts" (i.e. facts as they are, otherwise, same cannot be called "facts").

If only allegation is 'non-appearance of ITC in 2A for FY 17-18' & nothing more, I am sure a good professional can effectively defend your case (i.e. presuming that ITC claimed was otherwise genuinely available and admissible) legally.

All above are strictly personal views of mine and the same should not be construed as professional advice / suggestion.

[Tikam Gupta]

Dear Sethi Sir and Agrawal sir, Thank you for your reply.

The reason for not sharing the GSTR 6 is not the issue of the unmatching or wrong input distribution. The officer is pretending to be entirely unaware of the ISD distribution mechanism and focuses only on the data populating in 2A.

If we download the GSTR 6 from the portal, it shows only the total distribution amount in serial no four rather than the state-wise distribution. However, we have the state-wise backup working for this entire amount but cannot download the same from the portal.

Although we explained it to the officer, he was not ready to understand. We are trying to convince him and will submit the GSTR 6 and supporting documents.

Please advise whether we can download the state-wise distribution from the portal.

Thank you for your support.

[Shilpi Jain]

One point is that there was a circular which stated that RCM credit should not be denied only because it does not populate in GSTR-2A. 2a should be checked only for credit which come in it.

[Shilpi Jain]

Another point is that in 2017-18 there was no requirement to follow and take credit as per 2a.

[KASTURI SETHI]

Downloading is not the issue. You have been rightly advised by Sh.Amit Agrawal. You will have to fight the case. In case you do not get justice at first stage, you will get justice at appellate stage.

AI Summary

Burden of proof on input tax credit claim: non population of ISD in GSTR 2A doesn't excuse compliance or genuineness. Burden of proof for claiming input tax credit lies with the recipient, who must substantiate ITC with statutory records and comply with eligibility rules; discrepancies arising from non population of ISD distributions in GSTR 2A do not excuse lack of compliance. Portal reporting gaps are not a legal defence, though credits absent from GSTR 2A (including certain RCM items) should not be automatically denied, and taxpayers should retain and produce GSTR 6 and state wise backup to support entitlement.