Analysis of First-Ever GSTAT Judgement: Sterling & Wilson Case Sets Key GST Appeal Precedent in India

Key Highlights of the Case

1. The argument advance by the Revenue that the Tribunal cannot go into the question of fact is not sustainable and it is held that in exercise of Jurisdiction under Section 112 read with Rule 112 has power to examine question of facts also and it is the last adjudicating forum on questions of facts. (pt. 21)

2. Every litigation has its own merits and demerit. It has to be decided on its own facts and merits. A cannot be decided on the basis consequences that follow with respect to other litigations. (pt. 25)

3. If it is held, he has no intention of evading tax by submitting wrong data or misinformation or fraudulent misinformation having intend to evade tax then he should be given a proper hearing before saddling him with penalties and interest. (pt. 27)

1. Case Background

This case involves M/s Sterling & Wilson Private Limited, an EPC company registered under GST in Odisha. The dispute relates to the financial year 2018–19 and concerns differences between GST liability reported in GSTR-1 and tax paid through GSTR-3B. The company filed a second appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) challenging the order passed by the First Appellate Authority.

2. Dispute

The Proper Officer noticed that the tax liability declared in GSTR-1 was higher than the tax paid in GSTR-3B, resulting in an alleged short payment of ₹27.06 lakh. Based on this mismatch, a demand was raised under Section 74 of the CGST & SGST Act, alleging suppression and intent to evade tax, along with interest and an 100% penalty.

3. Order of the Proper Officer

The Proper Officer passed an order under Section 74 and raised a total demand of around ₹65.17 lakh, which included tax, interest, and penalty. The officer rejected the taxpayer’s explanation that the mismatch arose due to credit notes, debit notes, and advance adjustments, mainly on the grounds that these were not properly reflected in statutory returns.

4. Findings of the First Appellate Authority

On first appeal, the Appellate Authority examined GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, GSTR-9, and GSTR-9C. It clearly held that there was no fraud, suppression, or intent to evade tax. However, it still confirmed the tax and interest on the ground that reconciliation was incomplete and credit notes were issued beyond the time limit under Section 34(2).

The authority converted the case from Section 74 to Section 73, reduced the penalty to 10% of tax, and determined a revised total liability of about ₹45.61 lakh.

5. Grounds Taken in Second Appeal

The appellant challenged the first appellate order on the following grounds:

• The demand was confirmed merely on return mismatch without proper verification of reconciliation.

• The difference arose due to timing issues, credit notes, debit notes, and adjustment of advances.

• Once lack of intent to evade tax was accepted, proceedings under Section 74 should have been dropped completely.

• The issue was reconciliatory and revenue neutral, making interest and penalty unjustified.

6. Explanation Given by the Appellant

The appellant explained that during the initial GST period, system limitations prevented amendment of GSTR-1. All adjustments were properly recorded in books of accounts and reflected in GSTR-3B. Detailed reconciliations supported by invoices, credit notes, debit notes, and advance adjustments were submitted, showing that the entire difference of ₹27.06 lakh was fully explainable.

7. Stand of the Revenue

The revenue authorities argued that statutory returns are self-assessed and mismatches must be corrected within the prescribed framework. They pointed out non-amendment of GSTR-1, incomplete reconciliation in GSTR-9 and 9C, delayed issuance of credit notes, and failure to prove reversal of ITC by recipients. According to the department, the first appellate order was legally correct.

Also read our article: https://www.statvixadvisors.com/supreme-court-ruling-on-flipkart-tiger-global-for-dtaa-gaar-and-foreign-fund

8. Jurisdiction of GST Appellate Tribunal

The Tribunal clarified that under Section 112 of the CGST Act, it has the power to examine both questions of law and questions of fact. Unlike second appeals under the Civil Procedure Code, the GSTAT is the final fact-finding authority. Therefore, it can re-examine factual issues such as reconciliation and accounting treatment.

9. Key Observations of the Tribunal

The Tribunal noted that:

• The First Appellate Authority itself accepted that there was no fraud or suppression.

• All transactions were recorded in books of accounts and supported by documents.

• The only lapse was non-reflection of certain adjustments in periodical returns.

• Such issues require reconsideration, especially given the early GST phase and technical constraints.

10. Error in First Appellate Order

The Tribunal held that once Section 74 was found inapplicable, the First Appellate Authority could not itself finalize the demand under Section 73. As per Section 75(2) of the CGST Act, re-determination of tax in such cases must be done by the original Proper Officer.

11. Reason for Remand

The Tribunal took a practical and equitable view, recognizing that:

• GST was a new law during the relevant period.

• Returns were largely manual and prone to human error.

• The Covid-19 period added further compliance difficulties.

• An honest taxpayer should be given an opportunity to correct mistakes.

12. Final Decision of the Tribunal

The GST Appellate Tribunal set aside the orders to the extent they treated the case as finally concluded under Section 73 and remanded the matter back to the Proper Officer. The appellant was granted liberty to file amendment applications and supporting documents within one month. The Proper Officer was directed to re-examine the matter afresh under Section 73 after giving a proper opportunity of hearing.

13. Conclusion

The Tribunal upheld the finding that the case does not fall under Section 74 (fraud cases) but did not grant complete relief. Instead, it ensured procedural fairness by directing a fresh adjudication. No costs were imposed, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand.

Also read our article : https://www.statvixadvisors.com/delay-in-income-tax-refund-after-income-tax-appeal-orissa-high-court-in-the-case-of-daimond-plaza-private-limited-dated-12-february-2026

FAQs on Sterling & Wilson Private Limited's Case

1. What was the main issue before the GST Appellate Tribunal in this case?

The main issue was the difference between tax liability declared in GSTR-1 and tax paid through GSTR-3B for FY 2018–19. The department treated this mismatch as short payment of tax, while the appellant claimed it arose due to credit notes, debit notes, and advance adjustments.

2. Why was the demand originally raised under Section 74 of the CGST Act?

The Proper Officer raised the demand under Section 74 on the allegation that the appellant had short-paid tax due to suppression or misstatement. However, during appellate proceedings, it was recorded that there was no intention to evade tax.

3. What did the First Appellate Authority decide?

The First Appellate Authority held that fraud or suppression was not established and therefore converted the proceedings from Section 74 to Section 73. While penalty was reduced, tax and interest were still confirmed due to non-reconciliation of returns.

4. What important view did the GST Appellate Tribunal take?

The GST Appellate Tribunal held that once Section 74 is found to be not applicable, the tax liability under Section 73 must be re-determined by the Proper Officer, not by the Appellate Authority. The Tribunal also confirmed its power to examine questions of fact in a second appeal.

5. What was the final outcome of the Sterling & Wilson appeal?

In the case of Sterling & Wilson Private Limited, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Proper Officer for fresh consideration under Section 73. The appellant was allowed to file amendments and supporting documents, and the officer was directed to pass a fresh order after proper hearing.

Have query and need a consultation with tax expert?

We provide consultation to resolve your queries in the Area of International Tax, Indian Income Tax, Goods and Service Tax Act, though call with our Tax Expert CA Shilpa Arora.