ITC Cannot Be Denied Solely on GSTR-2A Mismatch and CA

ITC Cannot Be Denied Solely on GSTR-2A Mismatch and CA Certificate Is Admissible Post-Dated

Issue

Whether Input Tax Credit (ITC) can be denied solely on account of a numeric mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A/2B without examining underlying transaction evidence and applying CBIC Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST.
Whether a CA/CMA certificate issued after the appeal date is admissible as corroborative evidence at the appellate stage to reconcile GSTR-2A/3B discrepancies for FY 2017-18.

Facts

Background & Claim: The appellant, a proprietorship firm registered under GST, claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) on supplies received from two vendors for the financial year 2017-18.
Denial by Proper Officer: The Proper Officer denied the ITC claim and raised a demand solely based on a numeric mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A/2B.
Dismissal of Appeal: The First Appellate Authority dismissed the appellant’s appeal for non-appearance, without examining the merits of the case, despite a medical explanation provided by the appellant for the absence.
Evidence Before Tribunal: Before the Tribunal, the appellant submitted a CA/CMA certificate dated July 14, 2026, to reconcile the mismatch in accordance with CBIC Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST.
Revenue’s Objection: The Revenue objected to the admissibility of the CA/CMA certificate, arguing that it post-dated the filing of the appeal.

Decision

GSTR-2A/2B Mismatch Insufficient for Disallowance: A mere numeric discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A/2B cannot in isolation establish ineligibility for ITC. Compliance with Section 16 must be verified using underlying transaction evidence (invoices, books, payment records) and the procedure under CBIC Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST [Matter Remanded].
Admissibility of CA/CMA Certificate: A CA/CMA certificate issued post-appeal filing cannot be rejected solely due to its date of issuance. As long as it correlates with books, invoices, and returns, it serves as valid corroborative evidence and is admissible in pending proceedings under the circular [In favour of assessee].
Remand Order: Both the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal were set aside, along with the consequential demand, and the matter was remanded for fresh verification on merits [Matter Remanded].

Key Takeaways

Substantive Verification Required: ITC cannot be disallowed purely on automated or numeric GSTR-2A/2B mismatches; adjudicating authorities must evaluate physical tax invoices, ledger entries, and payment records.
Admissibility of Subsequent Corroborative Evidence: Reconciling documents and CA/CMA certificates produced under CBIC Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST are admissible at the appellate/tribunal stage even if issued after the initiation of appeal proceedings.

GOODS AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , LUCKNOW BENCH

Rameshwar Gupta

Commissioner SGST, GST Office, E Lucknow

Narendra Kumar, Judicial Member
and Alok Chopra, Technical Member

APL/1/LCK/2026

OCTOBER 6, 2026

Dr. Swayambhav Manu, Adv. for the Appellant. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Dy. Commissioner for the Respondent.

ORDER

Brief Facts of the Case

1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant, Shri Rameshwar Gupta, proprietor of M/s Shakti Iron Stores, a registered taxpayer under the GST law bearing GSTIN 09AFOPG6846H1ZZ, against Order No. ZD090525119927X dated 14.05.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-II (Appeal), whereby the appeal preferred against Demand Order No. ZD091225328365D dated 26.12.2023 of disputed tax amounting Rs. 13,12,968, was disposed of as rejected because the appellant did not appear before the First Appellate Authority due to Medical Issues. The Appellant aggrieved by the said order and submitted before this Bench that his claim of Input Tax Credit deserves to be allowed on the basis of the invoices, books of account, reconciliation

The entire ITC demand of Rs. 5,78,400.00 arises from supplies received from two identified suppliers:

Supplier	GSTIN	Aggregate Taxable Value (Rs.)	CGST (Rs.)	SGST (Rs.)	Total ITC ia Dispute (Rs.)
M/s Day & Co.	09ABBPK9377N1ZV	30,10,000.00	2,70,900.00	2,70,900.00	5,41,800.00
M/s Muskan Steel	09ABLNPM1316G1Z3	2,03,311.50	18,298.04	18,298.04	36,596.08
Total		32,13311.50	2,89,198.04	2,89,198.04	5,78,400.00

statements and other supporting documents, in accordance to the CBIC Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022. The appellant stated in the present appeal the total ITC in dispute is as below-

2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL

2.1 The appellant submitted that the First Appellate Authority had erred in dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds without examining the substantive merits of the case, thereby causing prejudice to the appellant and violating the principles of natural justice.

2.2 The appellant submitted that the Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2023 had been passed ex-parte without providing an effective opportunity to explain the alleged mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A and to produce the relevant supporting documents.

2.3 The appellant contended that the Proper Officer had not independently verified the fulfillment of the conditions prescribed under Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, including possession of valid tax invoices, receipt of goods or services, payment to suppliers, and payment of tax by the suppliers.

2.4 The appellant further contended that the alleged mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, by itself, had not established that the ITC was wrongly availed, particularly for FY 2017-18, when such discrepancies could have arisen due to suppliers’ reporting errors, delayed filing, incorrect GSTINs, or other bona fide reasons.

2.5 It was submitted that the Proper Officer had failed to consider and follow the procedure prescribed under CBIC Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 for verification of ITC mismatches pertaining to FY 2017-18 and had not called for the relevant supporting documents or prescribed certificates.

2.6 The appellant submitted that the First Appellate Authority had failed to properly consider the appellant’s contentions and had dismissed the appeal mainly on account of non-appearance and non-production of documents, without adequately examining the validity of the ITC claim or the reasons for the alleged mismatch.

2.7 It was further submitted that the Order-in-Appeal dated 17.04.2025 had not adequately dealt with the issues raised by the appellant and had not contained sufficient reasons for rejecting the appeal, thereby failing to constitute a proper and reasoned order.

2.8 The appellant submitted that the relevant purchase invoices, payment proofs, ledger extracts, books of account, reconciliation statements, and other supporting documents had been available with the appellant and could have been produced if an effective opportunity had been granted.

2.9 It was submitted that the authorities had failed to identify the specific reasons for the difference between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A and had not examined whether the discrepancy had arisen due to any default on the part of the appellant or due to errors or omissions attributable to the suppliers.

2.10 The appellant submitted that the appellant had consistently maintained that the ITC had been claimed against genuine business transactions supported by valid tax invoices and other relevant records, and that the claim was required to be examined on the basis of documentary evidence and proper reconciliation.

2.11 It was further submitted that the appellant had been willing to furnish a detailed reconciliation of the ITC claimed in GSTR-3B, reflected in GSTR-2A, and recorded in the books of account, along with supplier/C A/CM A certificates, wherever applicable, for proper verification of the claim. The appellant relied upon the various judicial precedents, which are reproduced below-

. G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada (2000) 3 SCC 54 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

II.

Raj Kumar Agrawal v. Suresh Chandra Jain [Writ-A No. 54978 of 2014, dated 10-4-2015] Hon’ble Allahabad High Court.

III.

Felicity Adobe LLP v. Asstt. Commissioner of Central Tax 115 GST 418 (Karnataka) on 16.04.2026 -Hon’ble Karnataka High Court.

IV.

Sanjeet Kumar Bhagat v. Commissioner of State Tax 112 GST 189/103 GSTL 215 (Jharkhand) 06.10.2025 -Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court.

Mukesh Kumar Singh v. Commissioner, Jharkhand GST 108 GST 765/95 GSTL 366 (Jharkhand), decided on 24.01.2025 -Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court.

VI.

Masany Construction Equipment (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer 109 GST 296/97 GSTL 120 (Kerala), decided on 11.03.2025 -Hon’ble Kerala High Court.

2.12 In view of the above, the appellant submitted that the Order-in-Appeal dated 17.04.2025 and the Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2023 are liable to be set aside.

3. Submissions of the Appellant.

3.1 Shri Swayambhu Manu, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Appellant and represented the case before the Bench. He is hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. Appellant.”

3.2 The appellant submitted that the objection regarding the CA Certificate dated 14.07.2026 is based only on the date of its issuance and not on the nature of the facts certified therein. The certificate relates to transactions of FY 2017-18 and merely certifies pre-existing facts relating to supplies, invoices and payment of tax by the concerned suppliers. The subsequent date of certification does not alter the date or nature of the underlying transactions.

3.3 Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 specifically provides a mechanism for verification of ITC discrepancies for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 and expressly states that the instructions apply to cases where adjudication or appeal proceedings are still pending. The Circular does not prescribe that the CA/CMA certificate must necessarily be issued before filing of the appeal.

3.4 The appellant further submitted that Rule 112 of the CGST Rules permits production of additional evidence before the appellate forum in appropriate circumstances, including where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing such evidence earlier. In the present case, the appellant has explained the circumstances relating to medical difficulties and GSTN-related issues which prevented effective participation before the First Appellate Authority.

3.5 The CA Certificate is also capable of independent verification from invoices, supplier GSTR-3B/GSTR-1, GSTN records and the reconciliation statement. Taking the certificate on record would therefore cause no prejudice to the Revenue.

3.6 The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in M/s Felicity Adobe LLP v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, decided on 16.04.2026, has emphasised the need to examine factual reconciliation and afford an opportunity to demonstrate the case where the dispute is capable of verification from documentary material.

3.7 Accordingly, the appellant submitted that the CA Certificate dated 14.07.2026 may kindly be taken on record and considered along with the supporting documents.

3.8 The objection that the medical documents do not correspond date-to-date with every hearing fixed before the First Appellate Authority is not, by itself, sufficient to reject the appellant’s explanation.

3.9In G.P. Srivastava(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that sufficient cause for non-appearance has to be considered with reference to the date on which ex parte action was taken. Earlier defaults, which had already been overlooked, cannot by themselves defeat relief where sufficient cause is established for the material date.

3.10 The said principle has also been recognised by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Raj Kumar Agrawal v. Suresh Chandra Jain. Thus, the relevant consideration is whether sufficient cause existed on the material/final date on which the First Appellate Authority proceeded to dispose of the appeal, and not whether the medical certificate reproduces every earlier hearing date.

3.11 A medical certificate is issued to record the patient’s medical condition and treatment; it cannot reasonably be expected to mirror the administrative hearing calendar of the tax authority. The medical documents should therefore be considered along with the nature and period of illness and the surrounding circumstances.

3.12 The appellant therefore prayed that the impugned order in Appeal and Order in Original to be set aside and the appeal to be allowed with the consequential relief as per law.

4. Respondent’s Contention

4.1 Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Learned Deputy Commissioner, appeared on behalf of the Respondent and represented the case before the Bench. He is hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. Respondent.”

4.2 The Ld. Respondent submitted that the contention of the Appellant that no effective opportunity of hearing was provided is factually incorrect. The Proper Officer as well as the First Appellate Authority provided sufficient opportunities to the Appellant to appear, present the relevant facts and submit the necessary documents in support of his case. However, the Appellant failed to avail the opportunities so provided and did not appear before either of the authorities.

4.3 The Ld. Respondent further submitted that the Chartered Accountant’s Certificate relied upon by the Appellant cannot be taken on record at this stage, as the same was issued subsequent to the filing of the appeal. Its admission would, therefore, require consideration of the delay and the justification furnished by the Appellant for producing the said document belatedly.

4.4 The Ld. Respondent submitted that the medical reports relied upon by the Appellant correspond only to the last date of hearing fixed before the First Appellate Authority. The said documents, therefore, do not explain the Appellant’s failure to avail the earlier opportunities granted during the proceedings.

4.5 The Ld. Respondent, therefore, submitted that the Proper Officer as well as the First Appellate Authority passed the respective orders in accordance with law after providing due and sufficient opportunities to the Appellant. Accordingly, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

5. Question of law –

(i)

Whether the Order-in-Appeal dated 14.05.2025 is sustainable when it was passed without proper verification of the conditions prescribed under Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017?

(ii)

Whether the alleged ITC mismatch for FY 2017-18 was required to be examined in accordance with the verification procedure prescribed under CBIC Circular No. 183/ 15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022?

Since the Question of law involved in the matter, therefore the case to be heard by this Double Bench.

6. Heard both the parties and perused the records.

7. FINDINGS

Issue no. 1.

7.1 This Bench has carefully considered, the Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2023, the Order-in-Appeal dated 17.04.2025, the grounds of appeal, the submissions of the Ld. Appellant and the Ld. Respondent, and the documents placed on record. The controversy primarily concerns the admissibility of ITC claimed by the appellant for FY 2017-18 and the basis on which the same came to be disputed.

7.2 At the outset, this Bench finds that the appellant’s non-appearance before the adjudicating/appellate authority cannot, in the peculiar facts of the present case, be treated as sufficient to conclude the proceedings against it without consideration of the substantive dispute. The appellant has placed an explanation for its inability to appear, including the medical circumstances relied upon. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.P. Srivastava (supra), that sufficient cause is required to be considered in the context in which the party was proceeded against, is relevant for such determination.

7.3 This Bench also finds that the Order-in-Appeal dated 17.04.2025 does not adequately address issue. The appellate authority was required to determine the substantive issue arising from the alleged ITC discrepancy and record reasons on the material having a bearing on the tax liability. The order of the first appellate authority is reproduced below-

This impugned order does not reveal that details of the case were examined on merit. It is submitted that due to medical difficulties the appellant could not appear before the First Appellate Authority to pursue his case, the medical certificate was produced in support of his arguments. In the light of judgements cited by the appellant the medical certificate of the appellant is accepted and the case is decided on its merit and the facts presented before this Bench.

Issue no. 2

7.4 During the course of hearing the Respondent was directed to verify the details furnished by the appellant. From the submissions made by the Ld. Representative of the Respondent, it is evident that the Department had examined the GSTR-3B and GSTR-2B position. But such verification could not be uploaded onto the GSTAT portal owing to technical difficulties. Thus, the issue before this Bench is not one of complete absence of departmental verification, but of the effect of a technical inability to upload the result of verification already undertaken. The Bench commenced hearings on 15th July 2026. In the present case, hearings were held on 15.07.2026, 07.08.2026, 18.08.2026, 14.09.2026 & 29.09.2026. Time and again the respondent was advised to get their id mapping process completed on the portal and also upload, among other required documents, the authorisation issued by competent authority to appear before GSTAT. Registry was advised to communicate the same to the respondent and a letter vide C. No. IV/01/02/Court Proceedings/2026 dated 10.08.2026 was issued to The Commissioner, State Tax (SGST), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. However, till the date of pronouncing the judgement i.e. 06.10.2026, there appears status quo and the respondent says that they are unable to access the portal and upload credentials. The Registry confirm that they have not received a response from the Respondent.

The matter cannot be allowed to linger indefinitely for want of a proactive and responsive approach of the Respondent and a decision needs to be taken based on the merits of the case.

8. As regards the alleged difference between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2B/GSTR-2A, such difference is undoubtedly a matter requiring examination; however, it cannot, in isolation, constitute conclusive proof that the ITC was wrongly availed. The difference has to be appreciated in the context of the relevant invoices, books of account, supplier particulars, payment records and other material forming part of the transaction.

8.1 The statutory conditions prescribed for availment of ITC under Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 remain applicable. However, the fulfilment of such conditions is a question to be determined on the basis of the evidence relating to the actual transactions. In the present case, the Department’s own verification of the GSTR-3B and GSTR-2B position assumes significance while determining whether the alleged discrepancy could legitimately sustain the proposed denial of credit.

8.2 Since the dispute pertains to FY 2017-18, the verification approach contemplated under CBIC Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 is also relevant, wherever applicable. The said mechanism is intended to facilitate examination of discrepancies by reference to the underlying transaction and supplier-side records rather than by treating the numerical difference alone as determinative. The Circular is reproduced below for ready reference

It is worthy to note that this circular requires the CA certificate in case where the disputed tax amount is more than 5 lakhs and it is applicable to the cases, which are pending at any stage.

8.3 This Bench holds that the arguments made by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the Chartered Accountant/CA-CMA certificate dated 14.07.2026, has been taken into consideration. Its subsequent date does not, by itself, render it inadmissible, particularly when the matters certified are capable of correlation with the books, invoices, returns and other contemporaneous records. The certificate is, therefore, to be appreciated as corroborative material and not discarded merely on the ground of the date on which it was issued. The CA certificate can be produced for consideration at the appellate stage because of CBIC Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 is applicable to the pending cases.

9. ORDER

(i)

The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

(ii)

The Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2023 and the Order-in-Appeal dated 17.04.2025 are set aside to the extent challenged in the present appeal.

(iii)

The consequential demand of tax, interest and penalty arising from the disputed ITC is set aside.

(iv)

The appellant shall be entitled to consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law. The Proper Officer is directed to take into consideration the CA Certificate produced before this Tribunal by the appellant, the invoices, the ledger account and the mismatch of GSTR 3B and 2A etc., for the determination of tax amount.