Reconciliation Errors and the Mandate of Post-Decisional Hearings

1. The Core Issue: Technical Deficiencies in Reconciliation

The dispute arose from a mismatch between the figures reported in GSTR-1 (Outward Supplies) and GSTR-3B (Summary Return). The Adjudicating Authority (AO) determined a short payment of tax, which the assessee claimed was merely a reporting error in March’s GSTR-1 that was subsequently corrected in the GSTR-3B and GSTR-9.

Revenue’s Stand: The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal because the assessee failed to provide a Chartered Accountant (CA) Certificate with a valid Unique Document Identification Number (UDIN). The absence of GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C was also held against the assessee, leading to an adverse presumption.
Assessee’s Stand: The assessee argued that GSTR-9C was not mandatory due to their turnover being below the threshold. They further claimed that a certificate had been filed, and a proper UDIN-verified certificate was obtained after the appeal was dismissed.

2. Legal Analysis: The UDIN Requirement and Natural Justice

I. Validity of UDIN in Legal Proceedings

The Unique Document Identification Number (UDIN) is a mandatory requirement by the ICAI to prevent the misuse of CA certifications.

The Ruling: The Appellate Authority was justified in its initial dismissal because a CA certificate without a UDIN is considered invalid and lacks legal authenticity for just adjudication.

II. The Right to a Post-Decisional Hearing

While the initial dismissal was technically sound, the High Court emphasized the principles of natural justice and the intent of GST law to settle disputes based on substantive truth rather than technical lapses.

The Remand: Since the assessee eventually obtained a proper CA certificate with a valid UDIN and possessed the necessary reconciliation documents, the Court held that denying them a hearing would be unfair.
Factual Reconciliation: Factual disputes, such as whether an error was “cured” in a subsequent return, require a detailed examination of records that cannot be bypassed due to a missing certificate if that certificate is later produced.

3. Final Ruling: Order in Abeyance and Remand

The Court balanced the Revenue’s procedural standards with the taxpayer’s right to prove their case.

Verdict: The impugned appellate order was kept in abeyance for eight weeks.
Directive: The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant documents (including the UDIN-verified CA certificate) within two weeks for a fresh post-decisional hearing.
Scope: All merits of the case were left open for the Appellate Authority to decide after reviewing the new evidence.

Key Takeaways for Appellants

UDIN is Non-Negotiable: Any certificate or report from a Chartered Accountant submitted to tax authorities must have a system-generated UDIN to be considered valid.
Threshold Awareness: Know your turnover limits. If you are exempt from filing GSTR-9C, carry the turnover proof to the hearing to counter the “missing document” argument.
Remedy of Remand: If an appeal is lost due to a technicality, a Writ Petition focusing on “Natural Justice” and the “Substantive Evidence” now in hand can lead to a second chance (remand).

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

Iliyash Sekh

Assistant Commissioner of CGST and C. EX^*

Om Narayan Rai, J.

WPA No. 23363 of 2025

FEBRUARY 9, 2026

Sandip Choraria, Akash Chakraborty and Rishav Manna for the Petitioner. Uday Sankar Bhattacharya, Tapan Bhanja, Tanoy Chakraborty and Saptak Sanyal for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner be kept with the record.

2. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 25^th September, 2024 passed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017 (hereafter ‘the said Act of 2017’) whereby the petitioner’s appeal against an adjudication order dated December 31, 2023 passed under Section 73 of the said Act of 2017 has been dismissed by confirming the said adjudication order.

3. The appellate order has held against the petitioner on the ground that the Appellate Authority did not find any reason for there being a “difference in GSTR-1 and 3B recorded in GSTR-9C“. The Appellate Authority has also drawn adverse presumption against the petitioner on the ground that despite opportunity being granted to submit additional documents namely certificate of Chartered Accountant with UDIN, GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C the petitioner has not produced the same.

4. Mr. Choraria, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is clearly bad in law. It is submitted that the petitioner had rightly filed its statement of outward supplies in Form GSTR-1 for the month of February (Financial Year 2017-18) but there was a mistake in statement of outward supplies of goods and services filed in Form GSTR-1 for the month of March (Financial Year 201718). He submits that the said mistake was corrected while filing the return in Form GSTR-3B for the month of March (Financial Year 2017-18) as well as while filing the annual return in Form GSTR-9 for the said Financial Year.

5. As regards the certificate of the Chartered Accountant, Mr. Choraria draws the attention of this Court to a copy of the certificate dated February 19, 2024 (at page 77 of the writ petition) and submits that although the same was produced before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority did not take the same into consideration as the same did not have UDIN.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner has thereafter been given a fresh certificate by the Chartered Accountant with UDIN and attention of this Court is drawn to the document annexed as Annexure P-7 to the writ petition (at page 122 thereof) in such regard.

7. Mr. Choraria submits that since the writ petitioner has been issued the said certificate, subsequently, the Appellate Authority must be directed to revisit the matter and take a fresh decision upon remand. It is further submitted that the Appellate Authority could not have found fault with the petitioner for not submitting GSTR-9 before the Appellate Authority inasmuch as the same is already available on the relevant portal. It is submitted that the petitioner could not be penalized for not producing Form GSTR-9C since there is no requirement of filing Form GSTR-9C for the petitioner as the petitioner does not fall within the category of persons having turnover of Rs.5 crore and above. He seeks setting aside of the order impugned with a direction to take a fresh decision.

8. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent CGST Authorities submits that the order impugned does not call for any interference. It is submitted that it is evident that a proper certificate of the Chartered Accountant was not furnished before the Appellate Authority at the time when the Appellate Authority was considering the petitioner’s appeal.

9. It is further submitted that the certificate which the petitioner is now relying on has clearly been obtained after the appellate proceedings got concluded. It is then submitted that at the time when the petitioner had filed its returns, requirement of filing GSTR-9C was very much there for the petitioner as well in terms of the provisions of Rule 80(3) of the GST Rules.

10. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record.

11. Since the petitioner had not been able to file the Chartered Accountant’s certificate in proper format which appears to be a significant document for arriving at a just conclusion by the Appellate Authority, therefore the order passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be faulted on that ground.

12. However since it is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner is now in possession of a proper certificate from the Chartered Accountant and that the petitioner can justify the difference in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B and also that the petitioner had cured the mistake that occurred in filing Form GSTR-1 for the month of March (Financial Year 2017-18) while filing the annual return as well the monthly return for the month of March for the same Financial Year, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be given a post decisional hearing by the Appellate Authority.

13. In such view of the matter, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority with all relevant documents including the certificate of the Chartered Accountant within a period of two weeks from date. If the petitioner approaches the Appellate Authority in terms of this order, the Appellate Authority shall reconsider the petitioner’s case in the light of the documents produced and submissions made by the petitioner in accordance with law.

14. The appellate order impugned dated September 25, 2024 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of eight weeks from date. The Appellate Authority shall conclude the proceedings and within the aforesaid period upon considering the documents submitted by the petitioner and the submissions made by him, in accordance with law, as aforesaid.

15. If the Appellate Authority finds that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference with the adjudication order, the Appellate Authority shall pass appropriate orders and in such case the Appellate Order impugned herein dated September 25, 2024 shall cease to have any effect and shall be treated as having been set aside.

16. However, if the Appellate Authority does not find any merit in the petitioner’s case, the Appellate Authority shall give reasons for not accepting the petitioner’s case and in such case, the appellate order impugned herein shall remain intact. The reasons given by the Appellate Authority for not agreeing with the petitioner or for not accepting his case shall in such a situation also be treated to be a part of the original appellate order.

17. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s case and all points are left open to be urged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority and to be decided by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.

18. As affidavits have not been directed to be exchanged, the allegations made in this writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.

19. With the above observations, WPA 23363 of 2025 stands disposed of. No costs.

20. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.