Jitendra Kumar Vs Nandnee Products (GSTAT Agra)
Summary: The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Agra, dismissed the State Tax Department’s appeal and upheld the first appellate order reducing the GST demand and penalty from ₹53,23,962 to ₹97,610. The taxpayer, engaged in manufacturing brushes, had failed to respond to notices issued during GST return scrutiny, resulting in an ex-parte order under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017. During appellate proceedings, the taxpayer produced books of account, tax invoices and supporting documents to substantiate its claims. The Tribunal upheld the findings concerning job-work expenditure of ₹26,75,343 and repair and maintenance expenditure of ₹9,27,345. It clarified that input tax credit (ITC) on insurance of merchandise stock was not prohibited under Section 17(5), while affirming the disallowance of specified credits unrelated to the furtherance of business. Regarding 26 cancelled e-way bills, the Tribunal noted that cancellations resulted from typographical and clerical errors and that fresh e-way bills had been generated against the same invoices immediately or within a short period. Documentary evidence supported the conclusion that there was no likelihood of misuse or suppression of turnover in the circumstances of the case. Since the Department failed to establish any factual or legal infirmity in the reasoned first appellate order, GSTAT dismissed its appeal without imposing costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF GSTAT AGRA
1. This appeal/application has been filed by Shri Jitendra Kumar, Deputy Commissioner, Agra on behalf of the Commissioner of State Taxes, U.P. under Section 112(3) of the CGST/SGST Act (in short “Act”) against the order dated 14-07-2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-2, Appeal First, Agra in Appeal No. ADO905250389820, year 2020-21. For convenience, hereinafter in this order, the appellant shall be referred to as the Department and the respondent shall be referred to as the taxpayer.
2. A brief description of the facts of the case are that taxpayer firm engaged in the business of manufacturing of brushes having GSTIN 09ADEPA6883E1ZK at Sharda Nagar, Nunhia, Agra. The Adjudicating Authority/Deputy Commissioner sector-5 Agra issued notice in ASMT-10 on the basis of alleged discrepancies noticed during scrutiny of GSTR- 3B / 2A/ 4A / R-1/ R-9 of the relevant year 21- 22 of the taxpayer.
3. As the taxpayer did not take any cognizance of such notice and thus, a Show cause notice was issued initiating proceedings under Section 73 of the Act. However, as the taxpayer did not respond to this notice also, a notice was again issued providing an opportunity for personal hearing before Adjudicating officer.
4. As the taxpayer did not respond to this notice also, the proper officer passed an ex-parte order under Section 73 and imposed tax and penalty against the taxpayer. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the taxpayer filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which was partially allowed by the First Appellate Authority and the tax and penalty imposed were substantially reduced from 53,23,962/- to Rs. 97,610/- only.
5. Aggrieved by this order of the First Appellate Authority, the Department has filed this Second Appeal before the Tribunal by virtue of section 112 of CGST/SGST, Act.
Submissions by the Appellant
6. Shri Mukesh Kumar Deputy Commissioner and the Authorised Representative appearing for the department stated that the First Appellate Authority erred in modifying/reducing the demand without properly appreciating the facts and documents on record.
7. He further argued that the taxpayer failed to respond to multiple notices (ASMT-10, DRC-01, Reminder), and the original order was passed ex-parte after providing sufficient opportunity. He also stated that the discrepancies in GSTR-3B vs GSTR-2A/1, ITC reversals under Section 17(5) (blocked credits on motor vehicles, insurance, furniture, etc.), ITC on capital goods, and treatment of expenses (job work, repairs, rebates) were not satisfactorily explained by the respondent. Many items do not qualify as “furtherance of business” or are blocked credits.
8. He further contended that the cancelled e-way bills were rightly treated as potential suppressed supplies in the original order; the appellate authority failed to consider that mere generation of new e- way bills does not automatically validate the transactions without proper reconciliation and supporting evidence.
9. He further contended that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, and relevant rules/notifications. It ignores the revenue’s interest and the taxpayer’s non- compliance during proceedings and reduction in demand is arbitrary and unsustainable. The original demand created on the basis of available records and non-response by the taxpayer deserves to be upheld.
10. By concluding his arguments he prayed that impugned Appellate Order dated 14/07/2025 be set aside to the extent it reduces the demand and the original Order dated 14/02/2025 be restored/upheld in full.
Submissions by the Taxpayer
11. Shri Lal Chand Ramwani, learned advocate appearing for the taxpayer making a written submission argued that in the first ground appellant mentioned that respondent firm failed to respond the notices i.e. ASMT-10 and DRC-01 and the original order was passed ex-parte after providing sufficient opportunity, in this regard we have to state that the response and reply could not be submitted by the respondent firm because any of the notices were not physically communicated to the respondent firm and all notices are issued online on the GST Portal and respondent firm was not aware of such online notices.
12. He further stated that in the second ground appellant mentioned that discrepancies in GSTR-3B vs GSTR-2A/1, ITC reversals U/s 17(5) (blocked credits on motor vehicles, insurance furniture etc.), ITC on capital goods, treatment of expenses claimed in P&L (job work , repairs, rebates) were not satisfactory explained by the respondent and many items do not qualify as “Furtherance of business” or are blocked credits, which is completely unjust and unfair because respondent firm produced all the relevant documents i.e. charts, ledger accounts, copy of invoices regarding ITC claimed on the purchase which have duly shown in 17(5) point of blocked credits on motor vehicles, insurance furniture etc and ITC on capital goods and expenses claimed in Profit and Loss (job work , repairs, rebates) before the first appellate authority and the first appellate authority also mentioned in the appeal order about the charts, ledger accounts, copy of invoices and other documentary evidences produced by the respondent and after examining all the documents, papers and evidences filed, first appellate authority passed the order.
13. He also contended that the third ground sought by the appellant regarding discrepancy of cancelled E- way bills was completely unjust and presumption basis because respondent firm submitted all relevant facts supporting evidences and documents before the first appellate authority and also submitted that due to clerical mistakes i.e. mentioning wrong amount, wrong HSN, wrong date, description of Goods etc. and technical problem of the E-way bill portal such E-way bills cancelled by the respondent firm and the seller firms who supplied goods to respondent because there was no option on the E-way bill portal of amendment or correction of mistakes in E-way bills therefore such E-way bills cancelled by the respondent firm and the seller firms and issued new E-way bills by correcting the mistakes with in a very short time.
14. Concluding his arguments he prayed that the departmental appeal be dismissed and first appellate order which has been passed after thorough examination of books of account and all the relevant records be affirmed.
15. We have heard both the parties and thoroughly examined the facts available on record. In view of rival contentions made by learned authorized representatives, the question for determination before this tribunal may be formulated as under- “Whether impugned order passed by learned appellate authority has been passed after due scrutiny and analysis of all the relevant facts or suffers any such infirmity of law and facts which requires interference?”
Findings with reasons
16. In this matter proper officer asked for some clarification through show cause notice but the taxpayer failed to appear before the proper officer and hence heavy demand of tax and penalty was created against him. During appeal proceedings taxpayer appeared before appellate authority and produced books of account, invoices and other documents.
17. The appellate authority, by conducting further enquiry, has analysed each point raised in the show cause notice and verified them in detail through the books of account and other documents produced by the taxpayer before him and thereafter passed a reasoned order.
18. First point raised by the proper officer is regarding expenses shown in his trading account and profit and loss account. Out of these expenses Rs. 26,75,343 relates to the job work which is verified by the tax invoices issued by the dealer providing job work services of manufacturing parts used in goods manufactured by the taxpayer. These tax invoices are reflected in GSTR-2A of the taxpayer and the taxpayer has claimed ITC on these invoices in his GSTR-3B and which has not been questioned. Similarly, Rs. 9,27,345 relates to the repair and maintenance out of which Rs. 7,14,724 relates to repair of machinery which is verifiable and ITC has been claimed in GSTR-3B and remaining Rs. 2,12,621 relates to the repair and maintenance of generator, car, scooter and maintenance labour which is verifiable but no ITC claimed.
19. The proper officer has reversed the ITC on the purchases of Rs. 2,19,791 available in GSTR-9 through the second point of the show cause notice, stating that it is not allowable under section 17(5) of the Act. The First Appellate Authority has analysed this point in detail, verifying the books of accounts. Out of this, payment of Rs. 1,31,219 relates to insurance of merchandise stock from SBI General Insurance, which is not prohibited by Section 17(5) of the Act. Section 17(5) (ab) of the Act prohibits ITC only for services of general insurance, servicing, repair, and maintenance services of motor vehicles, vessels, or aircraft. Therefore, the Appellate Authority’s decision allowing of ITC for insurance services of stock/merchandise is entirely justified. Similarly other purchase related to repair and maintenance of machinery etc. are held to be in the course of furtherance of business and are rightly allowed. First appellate authority held that out of this expenditure only expenditure of Rs. 13,850 does not relate to the furtherance of business and thus rightly disallowed ITC of 2064 0f SGST and 2064 of CGST. Findings of appellate authority on this point are based on proper analysis and are sustainable.
20. Proper officer through point number 3 of SCN questioned the ITC claimed on Capital goods and reversed the ITC of RS. 367919.91 of IGST, RS. 67101.81 of SGST and Rs. 67,101.81 CGST. Appellate authority also examined this point in detail and held that ITC of Rs. 2064 related to office chairs and wire as discussed in para-19 and the ITC of Rs. 18,709.32 related mobile phone thus total ITC of 20,774 of SGST and Rs. 20,774 of CGST does not relate to the furtherance of business and hence not allowable. Other ITC claimed by taxpayer are allowable to him as per law. These findings of the appellate authority also based on proper examination of books of account and related documents and hence need no interference.
21. Through last point of the SCN proper officer has questioned the cancellation of 26 E- Way Bills and presuming it for the suppression of turnover imposed tax and penalty. The First Appellate Authority conducted a detailed investigation on this issue as well and determined that these e-way bills were cancelled due to typographical and clerical errors committed by the taxpayer’s supplier. Copies of the cancelled e-way bills were submitted by the taxpayer to the Appellate Authority, which clearly reflected these clerical and typing errors. On scrutiny by the First Appellate Authority, it was also found that in place of these cancelled e-way bills new e-way bills have been issued against the same invoices immediately or within a very short period of time and this time period is very less as compared to the time required for transportation. Based on these facts, the Appellate Authority concluded that there is no likelihood of misuse of the cancellation of e-way bills in this case. This conclusion of the First Appellate Authority is supported because it is based on a proper analysis of the facts and on examination of relevant documents.
22. In light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order of the First Appellate Authority is passed after a proper consideration of the facts and thorough examination of relevant records. The Department has completely failed to point out any factual or legal infirmity in this impugned order. Therefore, in our opinion, the Departmental Appeal is liable to be dismissed as being devoid of merit, and the First Appellate Order is worthy of being upheld.
23. Consequently, appeal filed by the department is dismissed as found devoid of merit, order of first appellate authority which is under challenge is upheld. In the circumstances no order as to cost.
24. Order pronounced in open court on this 05th day of November, 2026
25. Order be communicated to all concerned, as per rules
