The GST Appellate Tribunal’s Thiruvananthapuram Bench set aside a cess demand on a cigarette seller, finding the GSTR‑1 figure matched no declared value while tax and cess in GSTR‑3B were consistent.
The GST Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, has held that a cess demand based solely on a higher figure wrongly entered in GSTR‑1 cannot stand where the taxable value, CGST and SGST are undisputed and there is no evidence of suppression or short payment. The Bench of Subramanya Rayaprol, Vice-President, who wrote the order, and Ramamoorthi Sriram, Member (Technical), quashed the demand [S.N. Stores v. Commissioner of Kerala State GST, 2026-juristway.com-3223-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST].
For January 2019, the appellant’s GSTR‑1 showed cess of ₹6,55,544.24 against a taxable value of ₹3,00,926, while its GSTR‑3B declared and paid cess of ₹2,56,350. The Department demanded the difference of ₹4,56,952 with interest and penalty, a total of ₹9,12,990. The first appellate authority rejected the clerical-error plea for want of evidence.
The appellant argued that the GSTR‑1 entry was a typing mistake and that the cess figure could be verified from the supply value and tax, both of which the Department had accepted. The Departmental representative relied on the first appellate order.
The Bench found that the GSTR‑1 cess figure did not correspond to any taxable value, CGST or SGST, while the CGST and SGST in both returns matched and had been paid. There was no allegation of suppressed sales of cigarettes or short payment of CGST and SGST. It held that “just making bald allegations of short payment of Cess is not acceptable” when the taxpayer explains a clerical mistake, and that the adjudicating authority should have examined the facts and condoned the error. Finding no evidence of short payment of cess, the Bench quashed the order-in-appeal dated 9 Jan 2026 and allowed the appeals with consequential relief.
2026-juristway.com-3223-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST
