In two appeals, the Tribunal held that Section 160(1) cannot save proceedings that travel beyond the notice, and that credit and debit notes of 2017-18 cannot be rejected merely because they were not uploaded on the portal.
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, has allowed two appeals where the adjudicating authority confirmed demands on grounds that did not form part of the show cause notice [Shri Traders, Palakkad v. Commissioner of CGST & CE, Kochi] and [Chennamkudiyil Timbers v. Commissioner of State Tax, Thiruvananthapuram].
The Bench of Vice President Subramanya Rayaprol and Ramamoorthi Sriram (Technical Member) found in Shri Traders that the notice alleged only a violation of Section 16(2)(aa), while the order held the appellant guilty under Section 16(2)(c). That the notice reproduced the whole of Section 16 did not help, since a mere recital of a provision without stating whether and how it was contravened does not put the taxpayer on notice. Section 160(1) did not apply, because the proceedings were not in substance in conformity with the Act.
In Chennamkudiyil Timbers, the notice alleged that sales returns were unsupported by documents, but the order rejected the produced credit and debit notes because the counterparty had not reported them in GSTR-1 and GSTR-9. The Tribunal held this travelled beyond the notice, and further that for 2017-18 there was no mandatory requirement to declare such notes on the portal, so notes otherwise in order could not be invalidated on that ground.
The interest demand in the second case was also set aside as the notice did not specify the months, amounts or period of delay, and the figures in the notice and order did not match.
2026-juristway.com-3017-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST & 2026-juristway.com-3021-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST | GSTAT, Ernakulam | 16.10.2026
