Decided 8 October 2026. The Bengaluru Bench of GSTAT has upheld denial of ITC where the buyer could not show that its suppliers paid the tax, as section 16(2)(c) requires, and produced no supplier certificate under Circular 183/15/2022-GST. It also held that for an inter-State purchase above ₹50,000, the e-way bill is the primary evidence of movement. The buyer keeps its right to re-avail credit if the supplier later pays.
Case at a glance
| Case | M/s Vintek Control Systems v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru |
| Forum | GSTAT, Bengaluru Bench (Division Bench Court No. 3) |
| Appeal No. | APL/31/BUR/2026 |
| Date pronounced | 8 October 2026 |
| Period | FY 2018-19 |
| Amounts | Tax ₹1,35,231; penalty ₹33,266; interest under Rule 88B(3) |
| Result | Appeal dismissed with directions |
Facts of the case
The appellant bought a fire pump for ₹14 lakh from a Chennai supplier who did not report the sale. A section 73 notice demanded the excess of GSTR-3B ITC over GSTR-2A (IGST ₹1,32,655 and small CGST/SGST amounts) on the ground that suppliers had not paid the tax.
The appellant skipped three hearings before the adjudicating authority and never produced any supplier certificate, e-way bill or transport record.
Issue before the Tribunal
Can ITC be allowed under section 16(2)(c) when the buyer cannot show the supplier paid the tax?
What the Tribunal held
- Section 16(2)(c) applies as enacted; the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Gujarat High Court's judgment upholding it (Maruti Enterprise). Under section 155 and Ecom Gill Coffee, the burden is on the buyer.
- Circular 183/15/2022 lets a buyer discharge that burden with a supplier certificate (difference up to ₹5 lakh) or a CA/CMA certificate (above ₹5 lakh). The original order ignored the circular, but there was no prejudice: the appellant had repeated chances and produced nothing.
- For inter-State movement above ₹50,000 under Rule 138, the e-way bill is the primary evidence; if not produced, movement must be proved by lorry receipts, freight, GRNs and stock entries. None were produced.
- Tax of ₹1,35,231 and penalty of ₹33,266 were upheld. Interest under section 50(3) must be computed under Rule 88B(3) and the working shared before recovery. The appellant may re-avail ITC under the proviso to section 41(2) if suppliers pay, and the department should pursue the suppliers.
Practical takeaways for taxpayers
- For any 2A-3B mismatch notice for 2017-18 to 2021-22, obtain supplier or CA certificates under Circular 183/2022 promptly.
- Attend hearings; absence makes it hard to claim the officer failed to consider evidence.
- Keep e-way bills for every inter-State purchase above ₹50,000; they are key proof of genuine receipt.
Frequently asked questions
What proof is needed for ITC when supplier's tax is not reflected in GSTR-2A?
Under Circular 183/15/2022, a certificate from the supplier (up to ₹5 lakh difference) or a CA/CMA (above ₹5 lakh) confirming the supplier paid the tax.
Can I claim the ITC later if the supplier pays?
Yes. The Tribunal preserved the right to re-avail credit under the proviso to section 41(2).
Facing a similar GST dispute?
GST Folio prepares replies to show cause notices, appeals before the Appellate Authority and GSTAT, refund claims and ITC reconciliations for businesses across India. Call or WhatsApp +91 80513 31315 or email gstfolio@zohomail.in.
This summary is based on the order of the GST Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (Division Bench Court No. 3) in Appeal No. APL/31/BUR/2026. It is general information, not legal advice; the outcome of any case depends on its own facts and the full text of the order.