Jana Small Finance Bank Limited Vs Pushpendra Kumar Meena (GSTAT Raipur)
Summary : The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal rejected Jana Small Finance Bank Limited’s appeal against the order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority and Joint Commissioner (Appeal), State Tax, Raipur, in First Appeal No. 1020/GST/2024. The dispute arose from unreconciled turnover disclosed in Table 7G of GSTR-9C. The assessing officer assessed turnover of Rs. 3,51,68,888/- and levied tax at 18%, together with interest and penalty. At the hearing, the appellant confined its argument to the claimed interest amount of Rs. 3,51,62,835/-.
The bank contended that the amount represented exempt interest income and adjustments relating to clawback interest reversal on non-performing assets, EIS interest reversal on securitisation transactions, value-dated transactions and accrued interest on NACH cheque bounce cases. It also alleged deficiencies in the show cause notice, non-consideration of its reply and denial of personal hearing. Examining Entry 27 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017, the Tribunal decided the exemption question in the appellant’s favour. However, the bank still had to establish that the disputed turnover represented exempt interest relating to another State, erroneously disclosed as Chhattisgarh turnover, for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018.
The Tribunal found that neither the statutory reconciliation statement nor the consolidated audit report substantiated that factual claim. The Chartered Accountant’s certificate dated 07.03.2024 did not specify its documentary basis or the findings obtained from the documents examined. The bank produced no supporting evidence before the assessing officer, the first appellate authority or the Tribunal, and its representative submitted that separating the evidence was not possible because the audit was conducted at PAN India level. The Tribunal drew an adverse inference from the withholding of producible evidence. It considered the appellant’s cited decisions collectively but found that they did not assist it in the absence of documentary proof. It further held that compliance with the procedural safeguards alleged to have been breached would not have changed the ultimate outcome. The appeal was rejected.
