The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), State Bench at Lucknow, has refused to admit an appeal involving tax/input tax credit of ₹14,182, exercising its discretion under Section 112(2) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017.
The Bench of Santosh Kumar Srivastava (Judicial Member) and Arvind Kumar (Technical Member) held that the amount involved did not warrant admission of the appeal. It expressly clarified that the appellant’s grounds and the substantive issues had not been examined on merits.
Buy Now: 210+ GST Judgments E-Magazine – October 2026
While considering admission, the Tribunal examined the monetary limit prescribed under Section 112(2). It recorded that the aggregate amount of tax/input tax credit involved was ₹14,182, below the statutory limit of ₹50,000.
The Bench explained that Section 112(2) permits the Appellate Tribunal, in its discretion, to refuse admission where the tax or input tax credit involved, the difference in tax or input tax credit involved, or the fine, fee or penalty determined by the order does not exceed ₹50,000.
The provision gives the Tribunal discretion at the admission stage. It does not make every appeal involving an amount within that limit automatically inadmissible.
Applying the provision to the present dispute, the Bench concluded that the appeal did not warrant admission and deserved to be refused at the threshold.
The issue table accompanying the order records a grievance concerning the calculation and recording of relief against an excess input tax credit demand.
According to the grievance reproduced in the table, the detailed appellate order in Hindi stated that the entire excess ITC demand should be deleted. However, relief was allegedly restricted to ₹2,506 each under CGST and SGST by using the lower figure appearing in the detailed original order.
The table further records an alleged clerical error in the system-generated APL-04, which showed relief of ₹2,506 under CGST and ₹3,506 under SGST.
The stated consequence was a residual excess ITC demand of ₹1,330 under CGST and ₹330 under SGST, instead of nil under both heads.
These matters formed part of the dispute recorded in the order summary. The Tribunal did not determine whether the alleged errors had occurred or whether additional relief was payable.
The table also lists confirmed amounts of ₹1,152 under IGST and ₹4,009 each under CGST and SGST. Separately, it records penalties of ₹10,000 each under CGST and SGST and ₹20,000 under IGST, totalling ₹40,000.
The Tribunal expressly confined its decision to the question of admission under Section 112(2).
Accordingly, it did not examine the correctness of the underlying tax demand, the disputed ITC calculations or the penalties on merits.
Although the prescribed order summary describes the status of the order under appeal as “Confirmed”, the operative reasoning clarifies that the appeal was refused admission and the earlier appellate order remained undisturbed. The disposal therefore does not constitute a merits-based rejection of the appellant’s substantive objections.
The Tribunal refused admission under Section 112(2) and disposed of the appeal.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
