Eway bill comparision with purchases and its itc in adt 02 and demand itc diffrence

[rajat solanki]

how can we counter i had written purcahse ewaybill were generated by supplier and not our responsibility and could be due to less than 50000 bills but still demanding itc in adt 02

[Sanjeev Agarwal]

The stronger defence is not simply "e-way bill was the supplier's responsibility" or "invoice value was below Rs. 50,000." That argument can be attacked if the department is actually questioning ITC eligibility.

Your response should separate e-way bill compliance from ITC conditions:

1. ITC cannot ordinarily be denied merely because an e-way bill was not generated by the recipient. Establish that the purchases are genuine and supported by tax invoices, books, payment through banking channels, receipt of goods and corresponding accounting/GSTR-3B records.

2. If individual consignments were below Rs. 50,000, explain the applicable e-way-bill requirement and why no recipient-side generation obligation arose.

3. If the supplier generated the e-way bills, attach the e-way-bill data and reconcile invoice-wise.

4. Most importantly, ask the department to identify the specific statutory condition for ITC allegedly violated. An e-way-bill discrepancy by itself should not automatically be converted into an ITC reversal.

5. If goods were actually received and the supplier reported the invoices/paid the tax, demonstrate compliance with the applicable ITC conditions.

For ADT-02, I would avoid admitting that e-way bill generation was "not our responsibility" as a blanket proposition. Instead state that the audit objection does not establish failure of any statutory ITC condition, and provide invoice-wise reconciliation/evidence.

AI Summary

Input tax credit reconciliation examines whether e-way bill discrepancies can support a demand despite supplier-generated transport documentation.
Input tax credit reconciliation is contested where purchase-related e-way bill information differs from claimed credit during ADT-02 proceedings. The proposed explanation is that e-way bills are generated by suppliers rather than by the recipient, and that transactions below the applicable e-way bill threshold may not generate such bills. The issue concerns a demand for credit arising from the discrepancy.