(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 149 (Bengaluru)Section 73Decision: In Favour of DGAP / Revenue
GSTAT on Section 128A Amnesty: Statutory Window Confined to Date of ITC Availment, Not Date of Underlying Debit Notes
The GSTAT Bengaluru Bench held that Section 128A waiver of interest and penalty applies strictly to demands pertaining to 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2020 based on when ITC was availed. A December 2020 claim cannot be backdated to FY 2018-19 to claim amnesty.
Case Name / Parties
Rodman Technologies Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Karnataka State GST, Bengaluru
Appeal Number
APL/8/BUR/2026 (Final Order No. 01/GSTAT BLR/DB 3/2026)
Tribunal Bench
Bengaluru Bench
Date of Judgment / Order
25/08/2026
Coram
Shri Prabhakaran P M, Member (Judicial) • Shri Ravi Jesuraj, Member (Technical)
For Appellant: Adv Vinayak B D, Counsel for Appellant
For Respondent: Dr Ramya, Deputy Commissioner, DR
Facts of the Case
The Appellant was engaged in garments manufacturing and trading. Scrutiny of its returns for FY 2020–21 under Section 61 revealed an excess availment of ITC amounting to ₹5,62,067/- (IGST ₹68,573/-, CGST ₹2,46,747/-, and SGST ₹2,46,747/-) in Form GSTR-3B for December 2020 compared to GSTR-2A. An SCN under Section 73 was issued proposing recovery of the excess ITC with interest under Section 50 of ₹3,23,753/- and penalty of ₹69,350/-. The Appellant deposited the principal tax amount of ₹5,62,067/- via DRC-03 on 09.01.2025, but challenged the interest and penalty. The Proper Officer confirmed the interest and penalty under Section 73(9), which the First Appellate Authority upheld. Before GSTAT, the Appellant claimed amnesty waiver of interest and penalty under Section 128A, contending that although reported in December 2020, the underlying debit notes pertained to FY 2018–19.
Issues Before GSTAT
- 1Whether an excess ITC demand raised for the tax period December 2020 can be treated as pertaining to the period 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2020 for the purposes of Section 128A amnesty waiver merely because the underlying commercial debit notes originated in FY 2018–19.
- 2Whether the waiver of interest and penalty under Section 128A can be granted where the taxpayer failed to file the mandatory application in Form GST SPL-01.
- 3Whether statutory temporal conditions in an amnesty provision can be relaxed or enlarged by judicial/equitable interpretation relying on CBIC Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST.
Relevant Statutory Provisions & Rules
Statutory Sections
Section 128A of CGST/KGST Act, 2017Section 128A(1) of CGST/KGST Act, 2017Section 128A(2)–(4) of CGST/KGST Act, 2017Section 73 of CGST/KGST Act, 2017Section 73(9) of CGST/KGST Act, 2017Section 50 of CGST/KGST Act, 2017Section 61 of CGST/KGST Act, 2017Section 107 of CGST/KGST Act, 2017Section 112 of CGST/KGST Act, 2017Section 112(1) of CGST/KGST Act, 2017
Circulars & Notifications
CBIC Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST
Contentions of the Parties
Appellant / Taxpayer Contentions
- •The underlying transaction and debit notes related to FY 2018–19, which falls squarely within the statutory amnesty window of 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2020 prescribed under Section 128A.
- •The error was identified during annual account finalization, and since past returns could not be edited, it was reported and discharged in December 2020.
- •The principal tax was fully discharged prior to the Section 73(9) order; under Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST and the Orissa High Court ruling in Samita Panda, amnesty schemes must be interpreted liberally to promote bona fide tax payments rather than defeated by procedural technicalities.
Respondent / Revenue Contentions
- •Eligibility under Section 128A is subject to cumulative statutory conditions; the demand must pertain to the period 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2020.
- •The disputed ITC was availed for the first time in GSTR-3B for December 2020; it was never claimed in FY 2018–19 and carried forward.
- •The taxpayer never filed the mandatory statutory application in Form GST SPL-01 to claim the scheme.
- •Amnesty benefits cannot be extended beyond the unambiguous temporal limits enacted by Parliament.
Findings of GSTAT
Section 128A provides a limited statutory relief granting waiver of interest and penalty, subject to cumulative satisfaction of all statutory preconditions. A primary condition is that the notice or demand must pertain to the period from 1st July 2017 to 31st March 2020.
The decisive consideration is the point of time at which the disputed ITC was actually availed and became the subject matter of the Section 73 proceedings. On the records, the ITC was claimed for the first time in December 2020. It was not credit availed in 2018–19 and carried forward. Therefore, the demand pertains to the tax period December 2020, falling outside the temporal scope of Section 128A.
Mere payment of tax before the prescribed date does not confer eligibility where the underlying demand fails to satisfy the statutory period requirement.
The Appellant completely failed to file Form GST SPL-01, which is a mandatory procedural requirement to invoke the scheme.
Wipro India Ltd. (concerning circulars on ITC mismatch) and Samita Panda are distinguishable. Statutory timelines enacted by the Legislature cannot be rewritten or enlarged by tribunals on equitable considerations. The Tribunal also reprimanded the practice of attributing fabricated quotes to judicial decisions.
Ratio Decidendi
Key Legal Principle
“The waiver of interest and penalty under Section 128A of the CGST Act is strictly confined to demands pertaining to the statutory window of 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2020, determined by the date on which the disputed tax liability or ITC was actually availed in returns, not the date of underlying commercial documents. Tribunals cannot enlarge statutory amnesty periods.”
Final Decision & Relief Granted
Outcome: The appeal failed and was dismissed. The interest under Section 50(1) and penalty under Section 73(9) confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and First Appellate Authority were upheld in full.
Relief Granted: None. Dismissal of appeal; interest and penalty affirmed.
Operative relief was verified against the Tribunal's order and accurately summarized without altering its legal effect.
Practical Implications for Taxpayers
- Do not assume that all Section 73 notices can be waived under Section 128A amnesty: check the exact tax period of the return in which the liability or ITC was declared.
- If excess ITC was availed in FY 2020–21 (April 2020 onwards), Section 128A is statutorily unavailable, even if the underlying purchase invoices or debit notes date back to 2017–2020.
- Always file Form GST SPL-01 on the GST portal within the notified deadline; paying tax via DRC-03 without submitting SPL-01 forfeits the amnesty claim.
Practical Takeaways for Tax Professionals
- Carefully audit clients' eligibility dates before advising them to pay tax in the hope of interest/penalty waivers under Section 128A.
- Do not confuse ITC mismatch relief under Circular 183/2022 or Wipro India with the strict temporal boundaries of Section 128A.
- Ensure accurate citation of judicial precedents; tribunals will cross-check extracts and strictly enforce the authentic text of CBIC circulars and judgments.
SKM
Editorial Commentary
SKM Laws Professional Analysis
The Rodman Technologies ruling provides a sobering reminder of the strict construction applicable to tax exemption and amnesty statutes. Following the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 insertion of Section 128A, many businesses attempted to pull later returns into the amnesty window by arguing that their transactions originated during the first three years of GST. GSTAT Bengaluru took an unyielding textual stance: the tax system operates on monthly self-assessed tax periods. Because Section 73 proceedings attack the return in which the excess credit was availed, a December 2020 return cannot be legally re-characterized as a 2018 liability. This judgment firmly delineates the temporal perimeter of the GST amnesty scheme.
Related Cases & Precedents
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 109
Examining Section 73 demands and statutory valuation relief.
(2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 131
Distinguishing substantive Section 16(5) relief from procedural amnesty schemes.
Related GST Tools & Utilities
Source Citation & Forensic References:
Official Citation: (2026) 1 GSTAT E- Journal 149 (Bengaluru)
Source Publication: GSTAT E-Journal, Volume I (Till 31.08.2026), Published by Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal
Journal Pages: 149-157
Legal Information Disclaimer
This case law analysis is published strictly for informational, educational, and research purposes. It does not constitute legal, tax, or professional advice. The ratio decidendi and commentary reflect professional editorial interpretations of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal's reported judgment. Readers must refer to the full certified order of the Tribunal before initiating or defending litigation.