The Tribunal meticulously verified each transaction and held that GSTR-2A is a facilitation measure — not a ground to deny ITC availed on self-assessment — and recorded a systematic pattern of procedural failures at both adjudication stages.
The GSTAT Prayagraj Bench has set aside a demand of Rs. 1,92,866 raised under Section 73 on the basis of GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B mismatch for April 2019, holding that the entire ITC pertained to genuine purchases of FY 2018-19 properly claimed before the statutory deadline under Section 16(4) read with Section 39(9) [Neelima Goenka v. Commissioner, State Tax Lucknow & Ors].
The Bench of Mahtab Ahmad (Judicial Member) and Ashish Varma (Technical Member) meticulously verified each transaction from tax invoices, e-way bills, transport receipts, and GSTR-2A screenshots, tracing the entire ITC of Rs. 1,62,818.76 to identified suppliers in June, September, December 2018 and January 2019.
The Tribunal noted that the same proper officer had previously issued two Section 61 notices on the same mismatch, both of which were dropped with the observation that the taxpayer's reply was satisfactory. A third Section 61 notice covering the whole FY 2019-20 was also dropped on 30.05.2024 after the appellant's detailed explanation.
On natural justice, the Tribunal recorded a systematic pattern of failures: notices uploaded in the secondary 'Additional Notices & Orders' tab instead of the primary tab; the Section 73 notice marking hearing date, time, and venue as 'NA' — violating the dual requirement under Section 75(4); both the OIO and OIA passed on dates never fixed or communicated; and the appellate order being a non-speaking order that failed to examine the grounds and evidence in the appeal memo, violating Section 107(12).
Rather than remanding the seven-year-old matter, the Tribunal decided it on merits and struck off the entire demand, directing refund of any amount deposited.
2026-juristway.com-2953-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST | GSTAT, Prayagraj | APL/1/ALB/2026 | 14.10.2026
