TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 560
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....voices, books of account, reconciliation. The entire ITC demand of Rs. 5,78,400.00 arises from supplies received from two identified suppliers: Supplier GSTIN Aggregate Taxable Value (Rs.) CGST (Rs.) SGST (Rs.) Total ITC in Dispute (Rs.) M/s Day & Co. 09ABBPK9377NIZV 30,10,000.00 2,70,900.00 2,70,900.00 5,41,800.00 M/s Muskan Steel 09ABLNPM1316G1Z3 2,03,311.50 18,298.04 18,298.04 36,596.08 Total 32,13,311.50 2,89,198.04 2,89,198.04 5,78,400.00 statements and other supporting documents, in accordance to the CBIC Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022. The appellant stated in the present appeal the total ITC in dispute is as below- 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL 2.1 The appellant submitted that the First Appellate Authority had erred in dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds without examining the substantive merits of the case, thereby causing prejudice to the appellant and violating the principles of natural justice. 2.2 The appellant submitted that the Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2023 had been passed ex-parte without providing an effective opportunity to explain the alleged mismatch be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cords, and that the claim was required to be examined on the basis of documentary evidence and proper reconciliation. 2.11 It was further submitted that the appellant had been willing to furnish a detailed reconciliation of the ITC claimed in GSTR-3B, reflected in GSTR-2A, and recorded in the books of account, along with supplier/CA/CMA certificates, wherever applicable, for proper verification of the claim. The appellant relied upon the various judicial precedents, which are reproduced below- I.G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada & Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 54-Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. II. Raj Kumar Agrawal v. Suresh Chandra Jain, Writ-A No. 54978 of 2014-Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. III. M/s Felicity Adobe LLP v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, decided on 16.04.2026-Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. IV. Sanjeet Kumar Bhagat v. Commissioner of State Tax, decided on 06.10.2025-Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court. V. Mukesh Kumar Singh v. Commissioner, Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax, decided on 24.01.2025-Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court. VI. Masany Construction Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. State Tax Officer, decided on 11.03.2025-Hon'ble Kera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... along with the supporting documents. 3.8 The objection that the medical documents do not correspond date-to-date with every hearing fixed before the First Appellate Authority is not, by itself, sufficient to reject the appellant's explanation. 3.9 In G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada, (2000) 3 SCC 54, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that sufficient cause for non-appearance has to be considered with reference to the date on which ex-parte action was taken. Earlier defaults, which had already been overlooked, cannot by themselves defeat relief where sufficient cause is established for the material date. 3.10 The said principle has also been recognised by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Raj Kumar Agrawal v. Suresh Chandra Jain. Thus, the relevant consideration is whether sufficient cause existed on the material/final date on which the First Appellate Authority proceeded to dispose of the appeal, and not whether the medical certificate reproduces every earlier hearing date. 3.11 A medical certificate is issued to record the patient's medical condition and treatment; it cannot reasonably be expected to mirror the administrative hearing calendar of the tax authority. The me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022? Since the Question of law involved in the matter, therefore the case to be heard by this Double Bench. 6. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 7. FINDINGS Issue no. 1. 7.1 This Bench has carefully considered, the Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2023, the Order-in-Appeal dated 17.04.2025, the grounds of appeal, the submissions of the Ld. Appellant and the Ld. Respondent, and the documents placed on record. The controversy primarily concerns the admissibility of ITC claimed by the appellant for FY 2017-18 and the basis on which the same came to be disputed. 7.2 At the outset, this Bench finds that the appellant's non-appearance before the adjudicating/ appellate authority cannot, in the peculiar facts of the present case, be treated as sufficient to conclude the proceedings against it without consideration of the substantive dispute. The appellant has placed an explanation for its inability to appear, including the medical circumstances relied upon. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada, (2000) 3 SCC 54, that sufficient cause is required to be considered in the contex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#2350;ें निहित निर्देश परिशीलनीय है - "No reply obtain from dealer in prescribed time. Petitioner has neither appeared for personal hearing nor has filed reply within the timeline. The mere fact that the reply has been filed at the will and preasure of the petitioner, beyond the period granted by this officer would not entitle the petitioner to the relief sought. Petitioner is not seen to have co-operated in the assessment proceedings, which is a critical pre-requisite to entitle itself to writ remedy. Writ petition dismissed." इस प्रकार अपीलार्थी द्वारा वाद के विवादित बिन्दुओं के सम्बन्ध में कोई समुचित कारण स&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase is decided on its merit and the facts presented before this Bench. Issue no. 2 7.4 During the course of hearing the Respondent was directed to verify the details furnished by the appellant. From the submissions made by the Ld. Representative of the Respondent, it is evident that the Department had examined the GSTR-3B and GSTR-2B position. But such verification could not be uploaded onto the GSTAT portal owing to technical difficulties. Thus, the issue before this Bench is not one of complete absence of departmental verification, but of the effect of a technical inability to upload the result of verification already undertaken. The Bench commenced hearings on 15th July 2026. In the present case, hearings were held on 15.07.2026, 07.08.2026, 18.08.2026, 14.09.2026 & 29.09.2026. Time and again the respondent was advised to get their id mapping process completed on the portal and also upload, among other required documents, the authorisation issued by competent authority to appear before GSTAT. Registry was advised to communicate the same to the respondent and a letter vide C. No. IV/01/02/Court Proceedings/2026 dated 10.08.2026 was issued to The Commissioner, State Tax (SGS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led in FORM GSTR-3B as compared to that detailed in FORM GSTR-2A for FY 2017-18 and 2018-19 - reg. 4. The proper officer shall first seek the details from the registered person regarding all the invoices on which ITC has been availed by the registered person in his FORM GSTR-3B but which are not reflecting in his FORM GSTR-2A. He shall then ascertain fulfillment of the following conditions of Section 16 of CGST Act in respect of the input tax credit availed on such invoices by the said registered person: i) that he is in possession of a tax invoice or debit note issued by the supplier or such other tax paying documents; ii) that he has received the goods or services or both; iii) that he has made payment for the amount towards the value of supply, along with tax payable thereon, to the supplier. Besides, the proper officer shall also check whether any reversal of input tax credit is required to be made in accordance with section 17 or section 18 of CGST Act and also whether the said input tax credit has been availed within the time period specified under sub-section (4) of section 16 of CGST Act. 4.1 In order to verify the condi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ORM GSTR-3B and that available in FORM GSTR-2A of the registered person in respect of a supplier for the said financial year exceeds Rs 5 lakh, the proper officer shall ask the registered person to produce a certificate for the concerned supplier from the Chartered Accountant (CA) or the Cost Accountant (CMA), certifying that supplies in respect of the said invoices of supplier have actually been made by the supplier to the said registered person 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 pers....