Incorrect ITC Reporting and Supplier's Tax Default Have Different Legal Consequences
Input Tax Credit (ITC) is an important feature of GST, but disputes often arise when the credit reported in GST returns does not match the original invoices or when the supplier fails to pay the corresponding tax to the Government. These two situations must be examined separately because a reporting mistake does not necessarily mean that the taxpayer has wrongly availed ITC. For example, eligible IGST credit may inadvertently be reported under the CGST and SGST heads in Form GSTR-3B. Such an error requires verification of the invoices, electronic credit ledger and actual utilisation of credit before any demand can be confirmed. On the other hand, where the supplier has failed to pay the tax collected on a supply, the recipient's entitlement must be examined in the light of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. Possession of a valid tax invoice, payment to the supplier and reflection of the transaction in Form GSTR-2A do not, by themselves, establish compliance with every statutory condition for availing ITC.
These two important issues arose in M/s Ram Niwas Sunil Kumar v. Rakhi Singh, Deputy Commissioner and Others, 2026-VIL-301-GSTAT-LCK, decided on 04.11.2026. The first dispute concerned eligible IGST credit that had inadvertently been reported under the CGST and SGST heads in Form GSTR-3B. The taxpayer maintained that the mistake was purely clerical and had not resulted in excess availment of ITC. The second dispute concerned ITC claimed on purchases from a registered supplier who had furnished NIL returns without paying the corresponding tax to the Government. The central questions were whether incorrect classification of otherwise eligible ITC could justify a tax demand and whether the recipient could retain ITC when actual payment of tax by the supplier had not been established.
The appeal was partly allowed, with different conclusions on the two issues. Regarding incorrect reporting of IGST credit, the matter was remanded to the Proper Officer for verification of the relevant records and consequential relief in accordance with law. However, the claim relating to the supplier's non-payment of tax was rejected because the recipient failed to establish compliance with Section 16(2)(c). The decision therefore highlights an important distinction between a correctable reporting error and failure to satisfy a substantive statutory condition. While genuine ITC should not be denied merely because of an incorrect entry in a return, entitlement to credit remains subject to compliance with the statutory requirements applicable to the relevant tax period.
Differences Between GST Returns and ITC Records Require Proper Reconciliation
The appellant, M/s Ram Niwas Sunil Kumar, was engaged in trading groceries and spices. The dispute pertained to the financial year 2018-19 and arose from discrepancies between the ITC declared in Forms GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 and the credit reflected in Form GSTR-2A. Proceedings were initiated under Section 73 of the UPGST Act, 2017, for alleged excess availment of ITC.
The Proper Officer, in an Order-in-Original dated 30.04.2024, confirmed a tax demand of ₹6,63,460, comprising CGST of ₹3,31,730 and SGST of ₹3,31,730, along with a penalty of ₹66,346. The First Appellate Authority upheld the demand on 27.01.2025. The appellant thereafter approached the GST Appellate Tribunal.
The Tribunal identified two issues. The first was whether incorrect reporting of IGST credit under CGST and SGST resulted in excess availment or utilisation. The second concerned the admissibility of ITC amounting to ₹1,67,790 on purchases from M/s Shree Parasnath Collection, Assam, where the supplier had allegedly failed to pay the corresponding tax. Both issues required separate examination because their legal foundations differed.
Incorrect Reporting of IGST Credit Does Not Automatically Establish Excess Availment
The appellant explained that eligible IGST credit of ₹6,71,751.50 had been inadvertently reported under the CGST and SGST heads, at approximately ₹3,35,875.76 each, while filing Form GSTR-3B. According to the appellant, the mistake was clerical and did not result in any additional credit being claimed or any revenue loss. The underlying invoices and accounting records supported the availability of IGST credit, but the amount had been entered under incorrect tax heads.
The Department rejected this explanation, contending that credit reported under CGST and SGST could not automatically be treated as admissible IGST credit. The appellant maintained that the authorities had confirmed the demand without properly examining the original invoices, books of account, the electronic credit ledger, and the actual utilisation of credit.
The Tribunal observed that the figures appearing in the adjudication order were not entirely identical to those furnished by the appellant. Consequently, proper reconciliation was necessary. A difference between the tax heads appearing in statutory returns does not necessarily establish excess availment of ITC. The Tribunal held that the claim could neither be accepted nor rejected merely on the basis of figures appearing in the annual return.
Actual ITC Eligibility Must Be Verified from Original Records and the Electronic Credit Ledger
The Tribunal emphasised that the correct approach was to examine the underlying transactions and the electronic credit ledger, rather than relying exclusively on differences between GST returns. Original invoices, books of account, credit reflected on the GST portal, and utilisation particulars were relevant to determining whether the appellant had availed excess credit.
Forms GSTR-2A, GSTR-3B, and GSTR-9 serve different purposes . Form GSTR-2A reflects supplier-reported inward supply information; Form GSTR-3B records self-assessed credit and tax liability; and Form GSTR-9 provides an annual summary. Differences between these records may require explanation and reconciliation, but a mismatch is not conclusive evidence that the credit is inadmissible.
However, the Tribunal did not hold that every error in reporting IGST as CGST and SGST must be ignored automatically. The taxpayer must establish that the underlying IGST credit was genuinely available and admissible. The decision therefore protects genuine claims against mechanical rejection while preserving the Department's authority to verify the supporting records.
The Combined Electronic Credit Ledger Balance Is Relevant for Determining Interest
An important aspect of the judgment concerns the treatment of balances under IGST, CGST and SGST in the electronic credit ledger. The Tribunal relied on Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex v. Union of India, 2024-VIL-1284-KER, decided by the Kerala High Court on 26.11.2024. That judgment considered CBIC Circular No. 192/04/2023-GST dated 17.07.2023, which concerns the calculation of interest under Section 50(3) read with Rule 88B.
The clarification provides that, for determining the utilisation of wrongly availed IGST credit and the resulting interest liability, the combined balance under IGST, CGST and SGST must be considered. If the aggregate balance never falls below the amount of wrongly availed IGST credit during the relevant period, interest under Section 50(3) would not arise merely because the individual IGST balance was insufficient. Where the combined balance falls below that amount, the extent and period of utilisation must be determined under Rule 88B.
The Kerala High Court compared the electronic credit ledger to a wallet with separate compartments for different taxes. The Tribunal considered this reasoning relevant because the appellant maintained that sufficient aggregate credit was available and that the discrepancy was revenue-neutral. However, this combined-ledger principle applies only to the specified interest calculation and does not override the statutory restrictions governing the utilisation of ITC under different tax heads.
Interest and Penalty Cannot Survive Without a Sustainable Principal Demand
The Tribunal accepted that a demand should not be sustained merely because otherwise eligible ITC was recorded under an incorrect tax head. The decisive question was whether the taxpayer had claimed or utilised credit beyond its lawful entitlement. If the records showed that eligible IGST credit was available and the discrepancy arose from incorrect reporting, the demand alleging excess ITC could not be maintained solely on that basis.
The Tribunal further observed that when the principal demand of excess ITC was found unsustainable, the consequential interest and penalty could not survive independently. A clerical reporting mistake should not automatically be treated as wrongful availment without examining its actual effect on the taxpayer's credit entitlement.
Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the first issue and remanded the matter to the Proper Officer for verification of the relevant figures, particulars and GST portal records. The officer was directed to extend the consequential benefit of the applicable judicial precedents in accordance with law. Thus, the relief remained subject to factual verification.
Reflection of an Invoice in GSTR-2A Does Not Establish Complete ITC Eligibility
The second dispute concerned ITC of ₹1,67,790 on purchases of ₹33,55,800 from M/s Shree Parasnath Collection, Assam, in August 2018. The appellant maintained that the purchases were genuine, the supplier was registered, the invoices appeared in Form GSTR-2A, and payment had been made through banking channels. It also stated that the supplier had filed Form GSTR-1 on 12.10.2018 and Form GSTR-3B on 06.02.2019.
The Department submitted that verification of the supplier's returns revealed that NIL returns had been furnished for the disputed period without payment of the corresponding tax liability. The controversy therefore concerned compliance with Section 16(2)(c), which requires actual payment of tax to the Government , subject to the applicable statutory provisions.
The Tribunal observed that the reflection of an invoice in Form GSTR-2A cannot conclusively establish compliance with every condition prescribed for availing ITC. Although the genuineness of transactions, invoices and payment particulars must be examined, the appellant failed to establish that the corresponding tax had actually been paid to the Government. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the ITC claim.
Section 16(2)(c) Requires Actual Payment of Tax to the Government
Section 16(1) recognises entitlement to ITC on goods or services used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of business, subject to prescribed conditions. For the financial year 2018-19, the relevant conditions under Section 16(2) included possession of prescribed tax documents, receipt of goods or services, actual payment of tax to the Government, and furnishing of the prescribed return.
Section 16(2)(c) requires that the tax charged on the supply must have been actually paid to the Government, either in cash or by utilising admissible ITC. A genuine purchase, a valid invoice, and payment to the supplier do not, by themselves, establish that the corresponding tax has reached the Government. The Tribunal therefore treated actual payment of tax as an essential statutory condition.
An important distinction must be maintained between the law applicable during the financial year 2018-19 and subsequent amendments. Section 16(2)(aa) became effective from 01.01.2022, while the substituted Section 41 came into force on 01.10.2022. Rule 37A, inserted with effect from 26.12.2022, subsequently provided a specific mechanism for reversal and re-availment in cases covered by that rule. These later provisions cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions undertaken during 2018-19. However, the requirement of actual tax payment under Section 16(2)(c) was already applicable during the disputed period.
All Statutory Conditions for ITC Eligibility Must Be Satisfied Together
The Tribunal relied on Maruti Enterprises v. Union of India, decided by the Gujarat High Court on 01.05.2026 and reported as 2026 SCC OnLine Guj 4013. The Gujarat High Court held that the conditions under Section 16(2) must be read together, not in isolation. A taxpayer cannot establish entitlement merely by proving receipt of goods or services while disregarding the requirement of actual payment of tax to the Government.
The Tribunal also referred to Sumetco Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2026-VIL-1019-RAJ, decided on 13.08.2026. The Rajasthan High Court emphasised the conditional nature of ITC entitlement and the mandatory character of Section 16(2). Satisfaction of one statutory condition does not dispense with compliance with the remaining applicable conditions.
These decisions reinforce that invoices, receipt of goods, and banking transactions may support the genuineness of purchases but cannot automatically substitute for proof of compliance with Section 16(2)(c). The Tribunal applied this principle in rejecting the appellant's claim relating to the supplier's non-payment of tax.
Section 155 Places the Burden of Establishing ITC Entitlement on the Claimant
Section 155 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that where a person claims eligibility for ITC, the burden of proving that claim lies with that person. The Tribunal considered this provision important because the appellant relied on invoices, supplier registration, Form GSTR-2A, and banking transactions without establishing actual payment of the corresponding tax.
The judgment also referred to State of Karnataka v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited, (2023) 6 SCC 12, which addressed the burden of proving genuine transactions. Mere production of invoices or proof of payment through banking channels may not, on its own, discharge the statutory burden of establishing ITC eligibility.
Nevertheless, Section 155 does not dispense with fair adjudication. The taxpayer must have an opportunity to address the material relied upon by the Department, including information concerning the supplier's alleged non-payment. The officer must examine the relevant records and determine whether the statutory requirements have been fulfilled. In the present case, the Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to establish payment of the corresponding tax.
Constitutional Validity of Section 16(2)(c) Does Not Dispense with Proper Adjudication
The Tribunal referred to the constitutional challenge to Section 16(2)(c). In Maruti Enterprises v. Union of India- 2026 SCC OnLine Guj 4013, the Gujarat High Court declined to declare the provision unconstitutional or to read it down. The Tribunal also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Bhandari Scrap Traders v. Union of India, 2026-VIL-69-SC, which affirmed the High Court's approach.
The Supreme Court held that no grounds had been established to declare Section 16(2)(c) unconstitutional or to read down its provisions. Therefore, the requirement of actual payment of tax cannot be disregarded merely because the supplier's default adversely affects the recipient's ITC claim.
However, the constitutional validity of a provision and its application to individual transactions are distinct matters. Proper examination of the evidence, the relevant tax period, and procedural safeguards remains necessary. The judgment should therefore not be interpreted as permitting mechanical denial of ITC without examining the circumstances of each case.
Relief on ITC Claims Depends on Verification and Compliance with Statutory Conditions
The appeal was partly allowed, as the two disputes involved different legal considerations. Regarding IGST credit incorrectly reported under the CGST and SGST heads, the matter was remanded to the Proper Officer for verification of the relevant invoices, electronic credit ledger and other records, with consequential relief in accordance with law. However, ITC of ₹1,67,790 was denied because the appellant failed to establish that the supplier had actually paid the corresponding tax to the Government, as required under Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. Thus, relief was granted on the reporting discrepancy subject to verification, while the claim involving non-compliance with a mandatory statutory condition was rejected.
CAclubindia
