Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback✕

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
╳
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
✕
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post a Query
Post a New Query ✕
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with ' ' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: ' ' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

Advanced Search ❮
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
From To
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID: 121156
Like 1 Bookmark

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

Date 02 Oct 2026
Replies 4 Replies
Views 605 Views
Input tax credit eligibility requires proof of genuine purchases; e-way-bill discrepancies alone should not trigger reversal.
Input tax credit eligibility should be assessed independently of e-way-bill compliance. Genuine purchases may be supported through tax invoices, books of account, banking-channel payment, actual receipt of goods, accounting and return records, and supplier reporting and tax payment where applicable. An e-way-bill discrepancy alone does not establish a basis for ITC reversal without identifying a failed ITC condition. Invoice-wise reconciliation and supporting transaction records should be provided. (AI Summary)

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

4 answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Like 0
Replied on Oct 2, 2026
1.

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.

Reply
Hide
1 Reply Show or hide replies
Like 0
Replied on Oct 3, 2026
1.1.

Effectively ITC is governed by Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017. However an e-way bill is one of the prescribed document under Section 68 for the purpose of transportation of consignment of goods in transit. And this can be generated for multiple reasons other than direct supply of goods.

Like 0
Replied on Oct 4, 2026
2.

The Audit Objection is not legally correct.

The following facts cannot be denied :-

E-way bill is NOT prescribed document for availing ITC.

Other docs proving genuine transaction cannot be ignored.

In this context, Books of Account (Statutory records) have to be accepted by the Audit Team.

Such issuance of ADT-02 is beyond statutory provisions and deserve to be quashed.

Study the following case laws word for word and prepare a list of statutory and non-statutory records/docs (except E-way bill) which are useful to you to contest audit objection:-

(i) Suncraft Energy Pvt. Ltd. & others affirmed by the Supreme Court 2023 (12) TMI 739 - SC ORDER and 2023 (8) TMI 174 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

(ii) Akal Trade Links Vs. AC (ST) Madras High Court 2026 (7) TMI 518 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

(iii) E-Com Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd 2023 (3) TMI 533 - SC

(iv) Zhuzoor Infratech (P) Ltd. 2025 (2) TMI 791 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT.

When ADT-02 is issued, the issuance of SCN is certain. You will have to fight legally.

Reply
Hide
Like 0
Replied on Oct 8, 2026
3.

E-way bill not mandatory in transit, if all compliances fulfilled--------Allahabad High Court reported as in the case of Praveen Industries Vs. State of U.P.- 2024 (9) TMI 755 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Issue is different but ratio can be applied. Can be helpful.

Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Issues