Vikram Inderjit Kapur Vs Chandrakant Dhondiram Jadhav (GSTAT Thane)
Summary: The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thane State Bench, in Vikram Inderjit Kapur Vs Chandrakant Dhondiram Jadhav, Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Appeal No. APL/10/THN/2026, decided on 7 October 2026, set aside an order involving the disallowance of input tax credit (ITC) on account of an alleged mismatch. The Tribunal held that the adjudicating and first appellate authorities had failed to provide the taxpayer with adequate information and a sufficient opportunity to present his case, resulting in a gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
The dispute originated when the State GST Department issued a show cause notice alleging an ITC mismatch and subsequently confirmed the proposed demand. The first appellate authority dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal. Before the Tribunal, the appellant submitted that the show cause notice did not contain the detailed particulars of the alleged mismatch, preventing an effective explanation. It was also contended that, considering the overall period, there was no mismatch and the ITC had been correctly claimed. The appellant further stated that the first appellate authority had passed an ex parte order despite an email request for adjournment.
During the proceedings, the State GST representative acknowledged that the detailed ITC mismatch chart had been uploaded to the portal only on 6 October 2026, immediately before the Tribunal’s order. The Tribunal observed that the chart had not been available before the original adjudicating authority. It also found that the appellant had not received an adequate opportunity of personal hearing during the appellate proceedings.
Considering these procedural deficiencies, the Tribunal held that the dispute required reconsideration by the original adjudicating authority. It directed that the taxpayer be supplied with the details of the alleged mismatch and given sufficient opportunities to explain his case. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a reasoned de novo order, preferably within three months from 7 October 2026. The Tribunal expressly kept all other issues open, including the substantive entitlement to ITC under Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with the Maharashtra GST Act, 2017.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF GSTAT THANE
The brief fact of the case is that the SGST department disallowed the Input Tax Credit on the ground of mismatch of ITC. Show cause notice was issued and the adjudicating authority confirmed the proposed demand of ITC. Against the said Order-In-Original, in the appellant’s appeal, the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal.
Shri Surinder Mehra appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that the adjudicating authority has neither given details of mismatch in the show cause notice nor provided thereafter to explain the mismatch. He submits that if overall period is taken then there is no mismatch and the appellant is entitled for the ITC correctly. He also submits that the learned first Appellate Authority has not given sufficient hearing as on the second date of hearing the appellant sought for an adjournment thru email communication, which was not granted and ex-parte order was passed.
Shri Chhagan Jaybhay, learned Deputy Commissioner, Authorized Signatory appearing for the State GST department, Respondent submits that the detail chart of ITC mismatch was submitted on the portal yesterday 06.10.2026 only.
We have heard both sides and perused the records. We find that in the present appeal the question of law involved is that whether the appellant is entitled for the Input Tax Credit in terms of Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with the Maharashtra GST Act, 2017 in the fact that the lower authorities disallowed the ITC on the ground of mismatch.
We find that in the show cause notice the details of mismatch was not given fully enabling to the appellant to explain their case. The detail chart of mismatch was submitted by the learned AR only now which was not before the adjudicating authority. Moreover, the learned Appellate Authority has not given sufficient opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. With this undisputed fact, we observe that there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice at every stage i.e. Adjudication as well as by the appellate authority. Therefore, we are of the view that entire matter needs to be reconsidered on all aspects by the adjudicating authority. Needless to say that the adjudicating authority shall grant the sufficient opportunities to the appellant to explain their case after the details of mismatch is provided to the appellant. Since, we have not examined other issues, all the issues are kept open. With the above observation, the impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for passing a reasoned de novo order, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of this order. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
(Pronounced in open court on 07.10.2026)
