TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal proceedings were initiated under Section 73 of the CGST/UPGST Rules, the principal tax in dispute is Rs.6,35,288.54, comprising CGST - Rs.3,17,644.27 & SGST - Rs. 3,17,644.27/-. GROUNDS OF APPEAL 2. The appellant has challenged the impugned order on several grounds, principally contending that the authorities erred in treating the difference between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A as excess/ineligible ITC without examining the underlying transactions and reconciliation. It was submitted that ITC pertaining to Reverse Charge Mechanism was not properly considered; discrepancies in GSTR-2A arose due to supplier-side reporting errors; and certain suppliers had incorrectly reported transactions as B2C instead of B2B, resulting in non-reflection of otherwise genuine ITC in the appellant's GSTR-2A. The appellant further submitted that certain ITC was available in GSTR-2A but was not claimed in GSTR-3B and that certain ITC was subsequently reversed in FY 2018-19. It was contended that the appellant's case is covered by CBIC Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 and that the reconciliation and supporting documents were required to be duly examined before determining any alleged excess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... available but not claimed, RCM and subsequent reversal. The appellant further submitted that B2C reporting differences amounted to CGST - Rs.2,33,547 and SGST - Rs.2,33,547, aggregating to Rs.4,67,094, while ITC of Rs.1,33,584.22 was available but not claimed and Rs.20,344 was subsequently reversed in FY 2018-19. 4.3 The appellant relied upon CBIC Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022, submitting that the conditions prescribed therein were fulfilled. The Circular specifically addresses differences between ITC availed in GSTR-3B and ITC reflected in GSTR-2A for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 and recognises that supplier-side errors during the initial GST period could result in such discrepancies. It was therefore submitted that the reconciliation and supporting invoices ought to have been examined and verified before confirming the demand. 4.4 Further, the appellant submitted that the partners of the appellant firm were during the very period of the passing of the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal placed in circumstances of grave personal distress. A fire broke out on 05.09.2022 at the premises of the sister concern of the appellant carrying on business under the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - i. Whether there are sufficient grounds in the appeal filed by the appellant to remand the case? ii. Whether the appellant is entitled to any relief on merits? FINDINGS OF THE BENCH 7. This Bench is of the considered view that the appellant did not have a proper opportunity to appear before the adjudicating authority and the First Appellate Authority. The reason stated by the appellant is that an FIR was lodged against one of the proprietors whose office was not working properly under his guidance and direction. 7.1 It has also been submitted by the appellant that the proprietor who was accused in the FIR remained in judicial custody for three months, due to which the appellant could not appear before the adjudicating authority. 7.2 The appellant has further submitted that, due to grave personal distress, appellant could not attend the proceedings before the First Appellate Authority, and the order was passed in absentia without affording the appellant an opportunity of being heard. 7.3 However, the First Appellate Authority, while passing the order in the first appeal filed by the appellant, mentioned in paragraph 5 of its order that sufficient ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2017. 8. This bench holds that the appellant has furnished a detailed reconciliation covering RCM, supplier reporting errors, B2C reporting, unclaimed ITC and subsequent reversal. We observed that though the appellant has submitted the copy of the invoices/certificates, in which 04 certificates were issued after the order was passed by the First Appellate Authority, but the issue of those certificates is of the same financial year i.e. 2017-2018 and the invoices were also issued in the disputed years to claim the benefit under Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST. The appellant produced transaction-wise supporting documents, as hereunder - Sl.No. Name of Party Taxable Value CGST SGST Date of issuance of certificates 1) M/s. Zenevo Technologies Private Limited 8,06,480 72,583.20 72,583.20 27.03.2026 2) Anita Srivastava 2,13,600 19,224.00 19,224.00 04.02.2026 3) Otis Elevator Company India Limited 95,555.56 8,600.00 8,600.00 01.04.2026 4) Ankur Talwar 2,07,000 18,360.00 18,360.00 22.01.2024 5) Radha Bhargava 62,322.22 5,609.00 5,609.00 22.01.2024 6) Kanika Agarwal 5,22,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8(2), attracting CGST and SGST. Accordingly, the appellant's availment of ITC under CGST and SGST is lawful, and the error lies solely with the supplier in reporting the tax under IGST. 9. Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST specifically addresses discrepancies between ITC claimed in GSTR-3B and ITC appearing in GSTR-2A for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 is reproduced below- "Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "CGST Act") provides for eligibility and conditions for availing Input Tax Credit (ITC). During the initial period of implementation of GST, during the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19, in many cases, the suppliers have failed to furnish the correct details of outward supplies in their FORM GSTR-1, which has led to certain deficiencies or discrepancies in FORM GSTR-2A of their recipients. However, the concerned recipients may have availed input tax credit on the said supplies in their returns in FORM GSTR-3B. The discrepancies between the amount of ITC availed by the registered persons in their returns in FORM GSTR 3B and the amount as available in their FORM GSTR-2A are being noticed by the tax officers during proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son and the tax on such supplies has been paid by the said supplier in his return in FORM GSTR 3B. Certificate issued by CA or CMA shall contain UDIN. UDIN of the certificate issued by CAs can be verified from ICAI website https://udin.icai.org/search-udin and that issued by CMAs can be verified from ICMAI website https://eicmai.in/udin/VerifyUDIN.aspx . 4.1.2 In cases, where difference between the ITC claimed in FORM GSTR-3B and that available in FORM GSTR 2A of the registered person in respect of a supplier for the said financial year is upto Rs 5 lakh, the proper officer shall ask the claimant to produce a certificate from the concerned supplier to the effect that said supplies have actually been made by him to the said registered person and the tax on said supplies has been paid by the said supplier in his return in FORM GSTR 3B. 4.2 However, it may be noted that for the period FY 2017-18, as per proviso to section 16(4) of CGST Act, the aforesaid relaxations shall not be applicable to the claim of ITC made in the FORM GSTR-3B return filed after the due date of furnishing return for the month of September, 2018 till the due date of furnishing return for March,....