The GSTAT Lucknow Bench has allowed an appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, holding that a numerical difference between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B cannot, in every circumstance, be equated with actual short-payment of tax, and that the authority is required to determine the nature and reason of the difference and whether it represents tax that has actually remained unpaid before confirming the demand. The ruling by Members Santosh Kumar Srivastava (JM) and Arvind Kumar (TM) in APL/74/LCK/2026 (M/s Om Traders, decided 29.09.2026) also held that the appellant’s claim under Section 128A of the CGST Act (conditional waiver of interest and penalty for Section 73 demands for FY 2017-18 to 2019-20) was a material statutory issue that the appellate authority was required to consider and decide, and that the omission to do so when the provision had already come into force before the appellate order was passed was significant.
The Tribunal identified six specific aspects requiring verification before the demand could be sustained: the outward tax liability declared in GSTR-1; the tax discharged through GSTR-3B; any tax subsequently deposited; the date and manner of such payment; interest actually payable; and whether any balance tax liability remained outstanding after the payment. The Tribunal relied on the Gauhati HC’s ITI Ltd. (mismatch requires explanation opportunity), the Gujarat HC’s Shreeji Developers (mere numerical difference does not establish short-payment), and the Kerala HC’s Masany Construction Equipment. The Tribunal also noted that grant of opportunity of hearing and proper adjudication are two distinct requirements — non-appearance may justify ex-parte proceedings but does not dispense with passing a reasoned order.
- 2026-juristway.com-2755-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST | GSTAT Lucknow Bench | APL/74/LCK/2026 | 29.09.2026
