In three appeals, GST Appellate Tribunal benches at Hyderabad and Bengaluru held that officers must examine amendment entries, supplier certificates and Circular 183 before confirming credit reversals.

Three rulings of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) hold that a difference between input tax credit (ITC) claimed in Form GSTR‑3B and credit shown in Form GSTR‑2A is where an inquiry starts, not where it ends, and that Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST binds officers when verifying claims for the early years of GST [Valuelabs Services Private Limited v. Dasari Balaih & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3431-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST; Optiv Trading India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, Bengaluru, 2026-juristway.com-3435-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST; Gajanan Nagesh Pai v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, 2026-juristway.com-3437-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST].

Valuelabs. A P Ravi, Member (Judicial), who wrote the order, and Duvvuri Krishna Srinivas, Member (Technical), cut a demand of ₹41,10,666 for 2017-18 down to ₹20,430 of IGST. The Bench held that the circular, issued under Section 168(1), binds the Department. It accepted an amended B2B entry in GSTR‑2A and supplier certificates, including a Chartered Accountant’s certificate with UDIN for a supplier above ₹5 lakh, which the appellate authority had rejected without reasons. Finding no fraud or suppression, it held Section 74 unsustainable and, under Section 75(2), treated the notice as issued under Section 73.

Optiv Trading. Prabhakaran P M, Member (Judicial), and Ravi Jesuraj S, Member (Technical), set aside an IGST reversal of ₹61,85,093 for 2018-19. ITC of ₹81,08,000 had appeared in the B2BA (amendment) table of GSTR‑2A for July 2019, which the adjudicator ignored. Had the officer called for invoice-wise details under the circular, the entries would have come to light. The Bench also held that an appeal cannot be dismissed for non-appearance alone, since Section 107(12) requires a reasoned decision on merits.

Gajanan Nagesh Pai. Ravi Jesuraj S, who wrote the order, and Prabhakaran P.M. remanded a demand of ₹10,72,000 for 2021-22. The order rested on two round annual figures, though Rule 36(4) applied month by month and Section 16(2)(aa) applied from January 2022. Both sides had fallen short: the officer did not verify and the taxpayer did not produce, and “neither lapse cures the other”. Interest under Section 50(3) read with Rule 88B(3) needs findings that credit was both wrongly availed and utilised.

The Valuelabs appeal was partly allowed and the Optiv appeal allowed. In Gajanan Nagesh Pai, the notice was restored to the proper officer, with eight weeks for the taxpayer to file an invoice-wise reply.

2026-juristway.com-3431-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST | 2026-juristway.com-3435-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST | 2026-juristway.com-3437-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST