TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1081
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....31.03.2018. A notice under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act was issued to the appellant in respect of alleged incorrect availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) arising from a mismatch between the ITC reflected in GSTR-2A and that claimed in GSTR-3B. 1.2 The appellant submitted that the disputed ITC was not wrongly availed in substance, but was claimed under the CGST and SGST heads instead of the IGST head due to an inadvertent technical/clerical error. The appellant contended that the corresponding IGST ITC was duly reflected in GSTR-2A and that there was no revenue loss to the Government. 1.3 The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, along with applicable interest and penalty. The appellant preferred an appeal under Section 107, wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntive eligibility of the credit has not been disputed. 3.4 The appellant submitted that the ITC claimed by the appellant in CGST and SGST in lieu of IGST was duly reflected in the corresponding returns/records, including FORM GSTR-2A, and the mistake was purely procedural and technical in nature. There being no allegation or finding of any fraudulent availment, suppression of facts or intention to evade tax, the substantive benefit of ITC ought not to have been denied on such technical grounds. 3.5 The appellant submitted that there is no loss of revenue to the Government exchequer, since the total amount of ITC reflected under the respective tax heads was duly accounted for and the dispute relates only to the manner/head under which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tently claimed under CGST and SGST in GSTR-3B due to a technical and clerical error. The appellant submits that there was no wrongful availment of ITC and no loss of revenue to the Government. 4.2 It is further submitted that the discrepancy was purely procedural and occurred due to an inadvertent mistake. Hence, the provisions of Section 73 are not attracted, as there was neither any intention to evade tax nor any excess availment or utilisation of ITC. 4.3 The appellant, therefore, prays that the demand of tax, interest and penalty confirmed by the authorities below may kindly be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 4.4 The appellant has relied upon several judicial precedents which are produced below- The Hon'ble Ke....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt as per Order-in-Original (?) Amount Sustained by First Appellate Authority (?) Amount Dropped/Reduced (?) 1. Tax / ITC 4,56,174.00 3,72,121.34 84,052.66 2. Interest 6,35,149.00 5,23,888.54 1,11,260.46 3. Penalty 49,270.00 37,212.12 12,057.88 Total 11,40,593.00 9,33,222.00 2,07,371.00 Thus, it is observed that against the total demand of Rs. 11,40,593/- confirmed in the Order-in-Original, the First Appellate Authority sustained a demand of Rs. 9,33,222/- and granted relief to the appellant to the extent of Rs. 2,07,371/ -. 6.3 Further, we observed that, after examine of the record the First Appellate Authority has recorded findings as below: - That th....