GST Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow27 August 2026

Lucknow Test House v. Shashi Bhushan Singh

For assessee

The ruling in brief

Where assessee's ITC allocation between IGST, CGST and SGST showed head- wise mismatch but total eligible ITC in electronic credit ledger equaled claimed ITC, such mismatch did not constitute excess ITC and principal demand, interest and penalty could not be sustained in absence of actual excess availment, as clarified by CBIC and supported by Rule 88B

Provisions considered

Section 73, read with sections 49, 49B and 50, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 88B of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

Kerala High Court10 Sept 2026

For assessee

Vinod George v. State Tax Officer

Where petitioner claimed input tax credit for March 2019 and filed return on 02.01.2020, since this was within cut-off date of 30.11.2021 prescribed by Section 16(5), denial of input tax credit on ground of limitation under Section 16(4) was unsustainable and order declining credit was quashed for reconsideration under Section 16(5) if otherwise eligible

Kerala High Court8 Sept 2026

For assessee

Munna Associates v. State Tax Officer

Where petitioner filed returns claiming Input Tax Credit for June 2018 to March 2019 on dates prior to statutory cut-off of 30.11.2021, denial of ITC solely on ground of belated filing was not justified and petitioner was entitled to ITC subject to other eligibility and order declining ITC on limitation was to be quashed

GSTAT Bengaluru31 Aug 2026

For assessee

N.R. Builders v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Where assessee claimed ITC on 2017-18 invoices in 2018-19 which matched legal timeline, and denial was based only on GSTR-2A non-reflection without verifying supplier payment or invoices, such denial was unsustainable because GSTR-2A was merely facilitative and demand could not be sustained without proper invoice-wise verification as per statutory circular GST: Where assessee was proceeded for excess ITC due to GSTR-3B versus GSTR- 2A mismatch and Order-in-Original was passed without granting personal hearing as required when adverse decision was contemplated, absence of such hearing itself vitiated order, rendering it unsustainable in law and necessitating its setting aside GST: Where assessee faced demand for excess ITC based on GSTR-3B and GSTR- 2A mismatch, and proceedings were initiated directly based on audit reference with proper demand notices but without scrutiny notice in ASMT-10, absence of ASMT-10 notice did not invalidate proceedings as demand initiation was independent of return scrutiny, thus, issue was answered against assessee

Related rulings

Kerala High Court10 Sept 2026

For assessee

Lucknow Test House v. Shashi Bhushan Singh

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Lucknow Test House v. Shashi Bhushan Singh

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Vinod George v. State Tax Officer

Munna Associates v. State Tax Officer

N.R. Builders v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Read the full analysis