Case Details: Sterling & Wilson Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Odisha, Commissionerate of CT GST (2026) 39 Centax 246 (Tri.-GST-Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Justice Dr Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, President
Facts of the Case
The appellant reported a higher output tax liability in GSTR-1 than in GSTR-3B, resulting in a mismatch that led to a demand for tax, interest, and penalty. Upon examination of GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C, the First Appellate Authority confirmed the tax and interest and reduced the penalty, holding that there was no establishment of fraud or suppression of facts, as the transactions were disclosed through debit and credit notes supported by invoices duly accounted for in the books of account, though not correctly reflected in the periodical returns. The proceedings were accordingly converted from Section 74 to Section 73 of the CGST Act/Odisha GST Act, and a penalty was imposed under Section 73(9). It was further held that the appellant could not prove that the input tax credit (ITC) passed to recipients had not been utilised. The appellant challenged the order, contending that the demand arose merely due to a return mismatch without proper reconciliation and that the levy of interest and penalty was unsustainable. The matter was accordingly placed before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).
GSTAT Held
The GSTAT held that the First Appellate Authority had recorded absence of fraud or suppression and had accepted that the transactions were supported by debit and credit notes duly accounted for in the books of account. It noted that the lapse found was a failure to reflect such debit and credit notes in the periodical returns, and to establish whether the ITC passed to recipients had been utilised. The Tribunal held that this aspect required reconsideration by the Proper Officer. The matter was therefore remanded to the original adjudicating authority for re-determination of tax under Section 74 read with Section 73 of the CGST Act/Odisha GST Act, with direction to provide the appellant an opportunity to amend the returns by condoning the delay.
List of Cases Cited
- (1997) 6 SCC 564 — Followed [Para 22]
- Bombay — 1997 taxmann.com 696 (SC) = 1997 (93) E.L.T. 641 (SC)) — , followed [Para 22]
- Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company — 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 14]
- Hamida v. Md. Khalil — (2001) 4 SUPREME 21 — Referred [Para 14]
- Sun Export Corporation v. Collector of Customs — Followed
- Sun Export Corporation v. Collector of Customs — 1997 (93) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 22]
- V.S. Products v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals) — (2024) 19 Centax 434 (Bom.) 19-Centax 434 (BOM) — Referred [Para 1]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- Circular No. 254/11/2025-GST dated 27.10.2025
