GSTR-2B non-reflection identified. Draft reasoning generated with statutory issue, taxpayer defence, officer thinking, and appeal risk.
Sec 16Rule 36CBIC Circular
Weakest point in draftReview
Penalty under fraud route needs stronger facts. GSTArkTM recommends alternate non-fraud framing where intent is not established.
Legal strengthStrong
Defence riskMedium
Citation statusTraceable
Platform
Everything a serious GST drafting system needs.
GSTArkTM is a GST decision intelligence layer. It does not simply write paragraphs. It extracts issues, verifies sources, identifies risk, and produces defensible drafts.
AI
Verified drafting
Generate SCNs, replies, orders, appeals, audit notes, refund responses, and hearing submissions with structured legal reasoning.
OK
Citation control
Every legal reference is treated as traceable. Unsupported citations are flagged instead of silently inserted.
LAW
Defence and risk analysis
See strongest points, weakest points, taxpayer defences, officer objections, and appeal risks before finalizing a draft.
DB
GST knowledge base
Use Acts, Rules, CBIC circulars, notifications, rulings, and judgments as the verified base for outputs.
UP
Pattern cards
Real-world GST issue patterns, triggers, red flags, strong arguments, weak arguments, and drafting strategy.
DOC
Document intelligence
Upload SCNs, orders, returns, ledgers, reconciliation files, and financial documents for issue extraction and drafting.
Dual Workspaces
Built for both sides of GST practice.
Professionals need authority and reasoning. Taxpayers need clarity, defence, and compliance action. GSTArkTM supports both without mixing their workflows.
Replies to SCNs, appeal grounds, refund responses, reconciliation support, personal hearing submissions, and compliance corrections.
Workflow
From uploaded document to defensible draft.
A transparent workflow that makes AI drafting reviewable, auditable, and practical for real GST work.
1
Register
Start a Free Trial or Login and enter the GSTArkTM dashboard.
2
Choose mode
Select Normal Chat, Taxpayer Mode, or Professional Mode before choosing a task.
3
Upload
Add SCN, order, return data, ledger, financial statement, reconciliation file, or case facts.
4
Generate
Output includes legal reasoning, citations, confidence markers, risk notes, and editable final draft.
Trust Layer
Anti-hallucination is not a feature. It is the foundation.
In GST, a wrong citation can damage credibility. GSTArkTM is designed around verification, traceability, confidence scoring, source badges, and professional review.
Verified source retrieval before generation
Post-generation citation checking
Similarity + recency confidence score
Manual review flags for weak legal points
Pricing Direction
Simple plans for serious GST work.
Start with a Free Trial and move into a premium GST intelligence workflow when ready.
Free Trial
For first-time users testing the dashboard and core GSTArkTM workflows.
₹0 /15 days
Dashboard access
Both modes + AI chat
Source badges
PDF export preview
Professional
For CAs, advocates, GST consultants, and serious drafting users.
₹999 /month
Advanced drafting workflows
SCN, reply, appeal and order modules
Citation verification
Merit and appeal-risk analysis
Enterprise
For firms, teams, and high-volume GST documentation.
Custom
Team workspace
Bulk document processing
Custom knowledge base
Audit trail and admin controls
Build GST work that stands scrutiny.
GSTArkTM is for users who need more than generic AI output. It is for drafting that must be checked, cited, reasoned, and defended.
Free Trial workspace
Start GSTArkTM
Select the Free Trial plan to enter the dashboard. This preview keeps authentication local; production must connect real auth before launch.
Free Trial15 days, no card, dashboard, modes, chat, source badges, PDF export.
Pro PreviewProfessional and taxpayer workflows with citation and risk layers.
InstitutionalDepartment-grade workflows and source-locked intelligence controls.
Beta preview only. No secrets are stored here. Connect secure authentication before production launch.
DB: 15,808 cases · 9 May 2026
Start New Task / New DraftChoose Normal Chat Mode, Taxpayer Mode, or Professional Mode. The selected mode stays locked through task selection, workspace, processing, and output.
Dashboard
Friday, 9 May 2026 · Abhijat Srivastava · Pro Plan · Database: 15,808 verified cases · 314 circulars · 94 HC judgments · Position as on 9 May 2026
⚡ Best next action
File reply for M/s Sharma Traders — DRC-01 ITC mismatch ₹4.2L. All 6 required documents collected. Sustainability analysis complete. Draft v2 ready to review.
12 days left
⏱ Limitation expiry tracker — act before these dates Sec 73 = 3 years · Sec 74 = 5 years from due date of annual return
M/s Gupta Exports Pvt Ltd
APL-01 appeal · 3 months from order date · Order: 9 Feb 2026
6 days
Deadline: 9 May 2026 · Sec 107(1) CGST Act
M/s Sharma Traders
SCN reply · 30 days from issue date · Issued: 27 Apr 2026
18 days
Deadline: 27 May 2026 · Rule 142(2) CGST Rules
M/s Raj Industries
Sec 73 SCN limitation · FY 2022-23 · Due date: Dec 2022
68 days
Expires: 16 Jul 2026 · 3 years from Sec 73(10)
31
Drafts this month
↑ 12% from last month
7
Pending review
2 due today
22
Completed
↑ 8 this week
2
Needs verification
Action required
Recent matters
SCN
M/s Sharma Traders — DRC-01 ITC mismatch FY 2022-23 · Department mode
2 hours ago · Sec 16(2)(aa) · ₹4.2L · Sustainability: 2 critical defects found · Basis shown
18 days
₹4.2L
Review
RPL
Reply to SCN — M/s Krishna Pharma ITC reversal · Defense mode
4 days ago · Turnover gap ₹12L · RCM exposure ₹3.2L · Self-audit risk scan complete
—
₹15.2L risk
Review
New draft — Choose your workspace
AI Powered GST Decision & Verified Legal Intelligence · Same verified database of 15,808 cases · Different perspective for each mode
🏛
Professional Mode
For GST departmental officers. Build legally sustainable SCNs, Orders in Original, audit reports, internal communications. System checks every draft before issue — will this survive appeal?
Not every question needs a structured workflow. Ask any GST question — sections, circulars, classifications, procedures, recent amendments. AI uses only your verified database of 15,808 cases and 314 CBIC circulars. Every answer shows its source.
Anti-hallucination architecture · 15,808 verified cases · 314 CBIC circulars · 94 HC judgments · Every answer shows reasoning basis
Professional Mode — Officer Workspace
Build legally sustainable notices, orders, and communications · Every draft checked before issue · Will this survive appeal?
🏛 Professional Mode — Legally defensible drafting from the officer's perspective
Switch to Taxpayer mode →
🤖 Intelligent agents — different agents for each document type AI Powered
📋
SCN Builder Agent — Show Cause Notice
Input: case facts, mismatch data, audit findings. Agent: selects correct section (73/74/74A), checks limitation, validates evidence, builds allegations logically, predicts taxpayer defenses, flags weaknesses before you issue. Output: SCN that can survive reply and appeal.
SCN Agent · 10-step flow
⚖
OIO Agent — Order in Original
Input: SCN + taxpayer reply + hearing notes. Agent: analyses reply point by point, identifies concessions to make, builds confirmation/drop/partial finding, checks appeal risk of every paragraph before finalising. Output: OIO that addresses every taxpayer argument with reasons.
🛡 Taxpayer Mode — Officer thinking simulation · Every figure shows its basis · Financial documents analysis
Switch to Professional mode →
🤖 Intelligent agents — different from department agents AI Powered
📝
SCN Reply Agent — Defense
Different from the department's SCN Builder. Input: SCN PDF + your facts. Agent: extracts every allegation, maps to legal provisions, assesses each allegation's strength, retrieves supporting HC decisions from 15,808 case database, drafts point-by-point reply with arguments in your favour. Shows legal strength basis for every point.
SCN Reply Agent · Point-by-point
🏛
Appeal Agent — APL-01 / APL-05
Different from OIO Agent. Input: adverse OIO/order. Agent: identifies every challengeable ground (procedural defects, wrong section, natural justice, limitation), retrieves favorable HC decisions, computes pre-deposit, drafts APL-01 with grounds. Assesses writ route if appeal has limitations.
Appeal Agent · Grounds + pre-deposit
💬 Replies and responses 6 types
✍
Reply to SCN (DRC-06)
Upload SCN · point-by-point reply · legal strength basis shown for every argument
DRC-06
📝
Reply to audit objections
Counter ADT-02 observations point by point · verified HC precedents
ADT-02
📝
Reply to scrutiny ASMT-11
ASMT-11 · data reconciliation + legal support for each query
ASMT-11
🗣
Reply to summons Sec 70
Sec 70 response · document list · appearance note · rights protection
Sec 70
🛡
Personal hearing submission
Written arguments + auto-generated hearing briefing note
Hearing
📋
Voluntary disclosure DRC-03
Proactive payment · reduces penalty exposure · covering letter
Free-form conversation · AI uses ONLY your verified database of 15,808 cases and 314 CBIC circulars · Every answer cites its source · No hallucination
💬 GSTArk AI Chat · Verified answers · Source shown · Position as on 9 May 2026
Switch to structured draft →
GSTArk AI — GST specialist
15,808 verified cases · 314 circulars · Sources cited in every answer
Hello. I'm GSTArk AI. Ask me anything about GST — sections, circulars, classifications, procedures, recent amendments, or case law. Every answer I give is sourced from your verified database of 15,808 cases and 314 CBIC circulars. I will always show which source I used.
What would you like to know?
GSTArk AI · DB: 15,808 cases · 9 May 2026
Can a recipient claim ITC if supplier's registration was cancelled retrospectively?
You · 14:32
Short answer: Yes, in many cases — if the purchase preceded the cancellation date and the transaction was genuine.
Legal basis: Section 16(2)(c) CGST Act — ITC can be claimed if tax has been paid by the supplier. Retrospective cancellation does not automatically mean the supplier did not pay tax at the time of supply.
Source from your database: 14 HC decisions retrieved on this issue. Of these: — 10 decisions: Court protected recipient when purchase was genuine and predated cancellation — 3 decisions: Court denied ITC where goods were not actually received — 1 decision: Matter remanded for fresh consideration
Key cases: • Madras HC (2024) — W.P.No. 3456: Retrospective cancellation cannot deny ITC to bona fide purchaser [Match: 92%] • Allahabad HC (2023) — W.P. 11782: Recipient cannot suffer for supplier's failure [Match: 88%]
What you must prove: Actual receipt of goods, payment to supplier including GST component, possession of valid tax invoice.
Source: 14 cases retrieved from GSTArk database · Position as on 9 May 2026 · Consult a professional before acting on this analysis.
GSTArk AI · 14 sources cited · 9 May 2026
AI uses only verified GSTArk database · No internet access during response · Every citation traceable to source document · Guidance only — not legal advice
Draft output — Professional mode
OIO — M/s Sharma Traders · ITC demand ₹4,21,340 · Professional perspective · Position as on: 9 May 2026
✓ 14 verified sources used·0 unverified citations·Anti-hallucination: ACTIVE·Position as on: 9 May 2026·Draft v2 · View changes ↓
📋 GSTArk Recommendation — Professional perspective
Basis: 14 retrieved sources · Sec 73 applies · 3 defects in current draft
Recommended finding
Confirm demand under Sec 73
Basis: Sec 16(2)(aa) mandatory 2B reflection — settled law post Finance Act 2021. ITC availed without 2B reflection — primary condition not met.
Critical fix before issuing
Replace Sec 74 with Sec 73
Basis: No fraud evidence in file. No mens rea established. Sec 74 penalty = ₹4.2L unsupported. Sec 74 creates 70%+ appeal vulnerability — 11 HC decisions set aside Sec 74 orders where fraud not proven.
APL-01 risk if issued as-is
Moderate — fixable
Basis: 2 significant defects in current draft. If Sec 73 substituted and GSTN 2B extract attached as relied-upon document, appeal risk reduces substantially.
⚠ This is an analytical assessment to assist the drafting officer. Final decision rests with the adjudicating authority. Review all facts independently before issuing any order.
Professional mode · Confirmation order (OIO)
14 verified sources
9 May 2026
⚡ Fix before issuing
Replace Section 74(1) with Section 73(9). Add GSTN 2B extract as Annexure A (relied-upon document). Address retrospective cancellation argument in para 5.
Basis: 11 HC decisions
ORDER IN ORIGINAL
Under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 · DIN: [TO BE INSERTED] · Circular 128/2019
1. Facts: Show Cause Notice No. ZY12345678 dated 15.01.2026 was issued proposing recovery of Input Tax Credit of ₹4,21,340/- on the ground that the said credit was not reflected in GSTR-2B for tax periods April 2022 to March 2023, in violation of Section 16(2)(aa) CGST Act, 2017 ✓ as amended by Finance Act, 2021.
2. Reply: The noticee filed reply dated 20.01.2026 contending that purchases were genuine, supported by invoices and payment, and that the supplier had filed GSTR-1 belatedly. The noticee also contended that supplier's registration was cancelled retrospectively.
3. Personal hearing: Held on 5 Feb 2026. The authorised representative reiterated submissions made in the written reply.
4. Consideration: Having carefully considered the reply and documents submitted, this authority finds that Section 16(2)(aa) ✓ inserted by Finance Act 2021 makes GSTR-2B reflection a mandatory condition for ITC availment. The retrospective cancellation argument has been examined. As the supplier's registration was cancelled w.e.f. [date] and the purchases were made in [period], the specific facts on this ground are assessed below. The submission of bona fide purchase, while noted, does not override the mandatory statutory condition.
5. Finding on retrospective cancellation: [ADDRESS THIS ARGUMENT SPECIFICALLY] ⚠ Complete this paragraph before issuing
6. Demand confirmed: Tax demand ₹4,21,340/- plus interest under Section 50 ✓ is hereby CONFIRMED. Penalty under Section 73(9) ✓ at 10% = ₹42,134/- imposed. Section 74(1) ⚠ NOT IN DATABASE FOR THIS CASE — remove, no fraud evidence
📊 Version comparison — what changed in v2v1 → v2
v1 — Original draft
Penalty imposed under Section 74(1) ₹4,21,340 as the demand involves alleged fraud and suppression of facts by the noticee.
v2 — After sustainability review
Penalty imposed under Section 73(9) ₹42,134 as no evidence of fraud or mens rea is established in this matter. Section 74 is not attracted.
✏ Add instruction — address retrospective cancellation, strengthen specific paragraph, add case law for specific point
🏛 Department mode · Verified 15,808 cases · Citation verifier auto-runs · Version compare shown
📋 Copy
📄 Export with Citation Report
📄 Export DOCX (DIN placeholder included)
Notice sustainability analysis
📋 Legal defect analysis — before issuing
3 defects · 1 critical
Critical defects — may be fatal independently
CRITICAL
Section 74 invoked without fraud evidence. No mens rea established in file. This is the most common reason orders are set aside in appeal.
Basis: 11 HC decisions where Sec 74 order quashed for lack of intent · Strength: Very Strong
Significant defects — strengthen reply if not addressed
SIGNIFICANT
GSTN 2B extract not listed as relied-upon document. Natural justice principle requires specifying all documents relied upon.
Retrospective cancellation argument in taxpayer reply not addressed in order body. Orders that ignore taxpayer's specific arguments are vulnerable on natural justice grounds.
Basis: Sec 75(4) · 4 HC decisions on speaking order requirement · Strength: Moderate
No critical defects found on
✓ OK
DIN present. Limitation period valid (within 3 years Sec 73). GSTIN correct. Specific allegations made with amounts.
Overall assessment: Multiple significant grounds for challenge exist. Critical Sec 74 issue must be corrected before issue. With Sec 73 substitution and documentation of relied-upon documents, this order is substantially defensible.
Source-locked precedents
✔Verified: CBIC Circular 183/15/2022-GST
"Mandatory GSTR-2B reflection as condition for ITC under Sec 16(2)(aa) effective FY 2022-23..."
Match: 96%Recency: Active · CBIC
✔Verified: Finance Act 2021 — Sec 109
Insertion of Section 16(2)(aa) — GSTR-2B reflection made mandatory condition for ITC availment.
Match: 94%Recency: Active · CGST Act
⚠Negative citation — supports taxpayer, not department
Allahabad HC (2023) W.P. 11782: Retrospective cancellation cannot deny ITC to bona fide purchaser when purchase predates cancellation date.
Match: 88%2023 · Allahabad HC
⚡ This judgment supports the taxpayer. Your order MUST address and distinguish it before confirming demand. Failure to address will be flagged in appeal.
Pattern detected — from your 200 pattern cards
🧠 ITC Mismatch — BIFA Auto-Scrutiny Flag
Based on 847 analyzed notices · 234 orders · 89 appellate decisions · Last updated: 9 May 2026 · Expert: AS
Origin
ASMT-10 auto-generated from GSTR-2A/3B variance. BIFA analytics trigger.
Drafting level
Typically Range Superintendent. Routine notice — not targeted investigation.
Section used
Sec 73 typically correct. Watch: Sec 74 often invoked without fraud evidence.
Common weakness
No independent inquiry beyond GSTN data. Relied-upon documents often not specified.
▶ → How this notice is typically built internally [expand]
▶ → Defenses that work at adjudication stage [expand]
▶ → Defenses that work at appellate stage [expand]
▶ → Common drafting mistake in SCN/OIO for this pattern [expand]
▶ → Recent HC decisions affecting this pattern [expand]
Basis: Sec 16(2)(aa) is settled law post 2021 · Multiple HC confirmations
Drafting
74%
Basis: 3 defects found in draft reduce score · Fix Sec 74 issue to improve
Draft output — Taxpayer mode
Reply to SCN · M/s Krishna Pharma · ITC demand ₹3,84,200 · Taxpayer perspective · Position as on: 9 May 2026
✓ 18 verified sources used·0 unverified citations·Position as on: 9 May 2026·Taxpayer mode · Officer thinking simulation · Arguments in your favour
🛡 GSTArk Recommendation — Taxpayer perspective
Basis: 18 HC decisions · 3 procedural defects in SCN · Sec 74 inapplicable
GSTArk recommendation
File comprehensive reply within 18 days
Basis: 3 procedural defects found in SCN + 18 favorable HC decisions on recipient protection. Your documentary position is strong if you have invoice + payment + e-way bill.
Legal strength assessment
Strong — multiple grounds
Basis: (1) Sec 74 inapplicable — no fraud alleged. (2) Retrospective cancellation defense supported by 14 HC decisions. (3) GSTR-2B non-reflection is supplier's default, not recipient's.
Risk if ignored
Ex-parte order + Sec 74 penalty
Non-response triggers ex-parte confirmation. Total exposure: ₹8,72,134 (tax + interest + Sec 74 penalty). Bank attachment possible within 30 days of order.
⚠ This is an analytical assessment. Must be reviewed by a qualified professional before filing. Platform does not provide legal advice.
📊 Favorable appellate outcome probability — data-driven, not opinion
📊 Favorable Appellate Outcome Probability
Based on GSTArk database · n=342 · Position as on 9 May 2026
68%–74%
Success Rate
Sample: n = 342 appellate cases matching your fact pattern
FILTER 2
GSTR-2B mismatch with valid e-way bill present — genuine transaction
FILTER 3
UP Jurisdiction — Allahabad HC / GSTAT North Bench precedents applied
OUTCOME
233 of 342 cases (68%) — appeal allowed / demand set aside / remanded in favour
233
Appeals allowed / favorable
67
Appeals dismissed
42
Remanded / partial
⚠ Probability is based on similar historical cases — not a guarantee. Your specific facts, documentation quality, and the assigned appellate authority will affect the actual outcome. Use this as a planning input, not a prediction.
💰 Complete revenue implication breakdown — every figure shows its calculation basis
Full financial exposure analysis — M/s Krishna Pharma
ASMT-10 auto-generated pathway. BIFA analytics detected GSTR-3B vs GSTR-2B variance of ₹3,84,200.
Drafting level: Typically Range Superintendent. Routine auto-flag — not a targeted investigation based on specific intelligence. Your advantage: No independent evidence gathered
What department needs to prove
That ITC was wrongly availed — not just that GSTR-2A does not match (GSTN data alone is insufficient)
That conditions under Section 16 were independently not met — beyond system-generated mismatch
If Sec 74 invoked: fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression — none of which are evidenced in this SCN Your strongest argument
Common departmental vulnerabilities in this pattern
No independent inquiry beyond GSTN auto-data
Supplier-side default treated as recipient's liability without examining individual facts
Section 16(2) conditions not individually examined — specific invoice-wise analysis absent Raise this in reply
Hearing strategy — what works with this officer profile
Department is typically open to partial resolution or drop if genuine documentary proof is produced
Focus on: invoice + payment proof + e-way bill — three documents together are very strong
If supplier has filed GSTR-1 after 2B cutoff: produce GSTR-2A data showing supplier filing
📍 Proceeding timeline — where you are and what comes next
Proceeding timeline Reply period open
15 Jan 2026
ASMT-10 scrutiny query issued · BIFA auto-flag
System-generated query on GSTR-2B mismatch
27 Apr 2026
DRC-01 Show Cause Notice issued · ₹3,84,200
SCN issued under Sec 73/74 · Reply window: 30 days
Now — 27 May 2026
⚡ Reply window open — FILE DRC-06 REPLY
18 days remaining · Rule 142(2)
Expected: Jun 2026
Personal hearing (if reply filed)
Extension possible under Sec 75(4) — apply before reply deadline
Expected: Jul–Aug 2026
Order in Original issued
If confirmed: appeal window = 3 months from order date
Within 3 months of order
APL-01 First Appeal window
Pre-deposit 10% = ₹38,420 · File with First Appellate Authority
📋 Personal hearing briefing note — auto-generated
📋 Hearing briefing — M/s Krishna Pharma
For hearing: [Date to be scheduled] · Prepared: 9 May 2026
Case in 60 seconds
◆ ITC ₹3,84,200 not in GSTR-2B · Routine BIFA auto-flag · No fraud allegation
◆ Supplier may have filed GSTR-1 late or registration cancelled retrospectively
◆ Officer has only GSTN portal data — has NOT seen your invoices or payment proof
Top 3 arguments to make in the hearing room
1. Sec 74 is inapplicable — no fraud allegation made. Only Sec 73 can apply. Demand the officer acknowledge this on record.
2. Retrospective supplier cancellation cannot deny ITC — purchase predates cancellation date by 18+ months. Allahabad HC 2023 directly supports this.
3. Three documents prove genuine transaction: invoice + bank payment + e-way bill. Produce all three originals.
Documents to carry to the hearing
✓ Purchase invoices for all 12 disputed transactions (original + copies)
✓ Bank payment proof showing GST component paid to supplier
✓ E-way bills for all disputed invoices
✓ GSTR-2A data showing supplier did file (just late)
✓ Supplier letter on late GSTR-1 filing (if available)
✓ Copy of the filed reply (GSTArk verified draft)
Do NOT say in the hearing
✗ "I didn't know supplier's registration was cancelled" — do not volunteer this, it weakens your position
✗ "GSTN has errors" — not accepted without GSTN certificate, avoid making unverifiable claims
🏛 Writ maintainability check — before going to High Court New
🏛 Is a High Court writ maintainable in this matter right now?
Many taxpayers waste ₹1-3 lakhs in HC filing fees on writs that are dismissed for not exhausting the appellate remedy first. GSTArk checks your specific case before you file.
✗ Appellate remedy (APL-01 First Appeal) not yet exhausted — file appeal first
✗ No exceptional urgency established — no provisional bank attachment made
✓ Natural justice argument available — officer has not addressed retrospective cancellation ground
✓ Limitation argument available if SCN is beyond 3-year period — check SCN date
Assessment: File APL-01 first. Appellate remedy not exhausted — writ premature and likely to be dismissed with costs. Return after first appellate order if needed.
🧮 Pre-deposit calculator — for appeal filing
🧮 Pre-deposit calculator — APL-01 First Appeal under Section 107
Total demand (if confirmed in OIO)
₹3,84,200
Pre-deposit required — 10% under Sec 107(6)
₹38,420
Payment from ITC credit ledger (if available)
₹38,420
Payment from cash ledger (if ITC insufficient)
₹0 (ITC sufficient)
DRC-03 covering letter
Auto-generated ✓ — see below
⚡ GSTArk has generated the DRC-03 covering letter for pre-deposit. Export below and attach with APL-01 filing. Basis: Sec 107(6) CGST Act — mandatory pre-deposit before first appeal is admitted.
Taxpayer mode · DRC-03 covering letter · Pre-deposit for APL-01
GSTArk Verified · 9 May 2026
⚡ Action
File this DRC-03 form on GST portal before or simultaneously with APL-01. Without pre-deposit the appeal will not be admitted.
Sec 107(6) mandatory
COVERING LETTER FOR PRE-DEPOSIT UNDER FORM DRC-03
Under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 142(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017
To,
The Assistant Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner (Appeals),
[Appellate Authority Name and Address],
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
Sub: Pre-deposit of 10% of disputed tax under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 — in connection with First Appeal (APL-01) against Order-in-Original No. [OIO Number] dated [OIO Date] — regarding GSTIN 09XXXXX — M/s Krishna Pharma.
Respected Sir / Madam,
The Appellant, M/s Krishna Pharma (GSTIN: 09XXXXX), respectfully submits that an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 is being filed against the Order-in-Original bearing No. [OIO Number] dated [OIO Date] passed by [Adjudicating Authority], whereby a demand of ₹3,84,200/- (IGST) was confirmed along with interest under Section 50 and penalty under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017.
In compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 107(6) CGST Act, 2017 ✓, the Appellant hereby deposits 10% of the disputed tax amount as pre-deposit, details of which are as under:
Particulars
Amount (₹)
Mode of Payment
Total tax demand confirmed in OIO
3,84,200
—
Pre-deposit @ 10% of disputed tax [Sec 107(6)]
38,420
ITC Credit Ledger (DRC-03)
DRC-03 reference number
[To be filled after filing]
GST portal — DRC-03
The above pre-deposit has been made voluntarily and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Appellant in the pending appeal. It is submitted that the pre-deposit does not constitute any admission of liability on the part of the Appellant.
The Appellant prays that the pre-deposit be acknowledged and the First Appeal filed simultaneously herewith be admitted for hearing on merits.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
____________________________
Authorised Signatory
M/s Krishna Pharma
GSTIN: 09XXXXX
Date: [Date of filing]
Place: Lucknow
Enclosures:
1. APL-01 Form (First Appeal) — filed simultaneously
2. Copy of Order-in-Original bearing No. [OIO Number]
3. DRC-03 form (pre-deposit payment challan) — to be attached after filing on portal
4. Grounds of appeal as per APL-01
✓ 2 verified sources used·0 unverified citations·Sec 107(6) CGST Act · Rule 142(2) CGST Rules·Position as on: 9 May 2026
✏ Add details to this DRC-03 letter — OIO number, authority name, date
🛡 Taxpayer mode · DRC-03 letter · Sec 107(6) basis
📋 Copy letter
📄 Export DRC-03 letter as DOCX
📄 Export full set: Reply + DRC-03 + APL-01 grounds
⚠ Guidance only — must be reviewed by CA or advocate before filing
AI-generated for reference and guidance only. All legal references must be independently verified. Must be reviewed by a qualified professional before submission. Platform does not provide legal advice. Every figure shown has its calculation basis disclosed above.
📋 Copy reply draft
📄 Export: Reply + Hearing note + Pre-deposit letter
📄 Export DOCX (GSTArk Verified)
✏ Add facts, raise a query, or strengthen your reply — GSTArk will refine with version comparison
🛡 Taxpayer mode · Verified 15,808 cases · Version compare shown after refinement · Basis disclosed for every change
GST risk radar — monthly pre-notice scan
M/s Krishna Pharma · GSTIN: 29XXXXX · Scanned: 9 May 2026 · Next: 9 June 2026 · Every risk item shows calculation basis
⚡ Best next action
Reconcile ITC 2B mismatch ₹3.84L immediately — BIFA flag risk HIGH. File DRC-03 proactively OR prepare reply draft now. Today's action reduces total exposure from ₹9.07L to ₹5.61L.
Act this week
HIGH
ITC 2B mismatch ₹3.84L
Basis: 12 invoices not in GSTR-2B for FY 2022-23. BIFA flag probability: High (threshold exceeded). Estimated exposure: ₹9.07L if Sec 74 invoked.
MEDIUM
GSTR-1 vs 3B gap ₹1.2L
Basis: Output tax in GSTR-1 exceeds GSTR-3B by ₹1.2L for Q3 FY 2023-24. ASMT-10 flag risk. File amendment or prepare reconciliation before SCN.
MEDIUM
E-way gap — 3 invoices
Basis: 3 invoices above ₹50,000 without e-way bill records in Q4 FY 2023-24. Detention/confiscation risk under Sec 129 if these are found in transit checks.
LOW
GSTR-9 status
Basis: Annual return FY 2023-24 filed 28 Nov 2024 — within due date. No discrepancy detected between GSTR-1 and GSTR-9 for this period.
LOW
Interest liability
Basis: All tax payments made within due dates for FY 2024-25. Cash ledger balance ₹2.4L — adequate for current quarter obligations.
MEDIUM
RCM non-compliance ₹2.4L
Basis: Legal services purchases ₹2.4L in Q3 FY 2023-24 without RCM payment under Sec 9(3). Estimated RCM liability: ₹43,200 + interest.
2
High risk items
3
Medium risk items
1
Low risk items
₹9.07L
Max exposure (if all triggered)
GST news & expert views
Latest amendments, verdicts and expert analysis · Updated every Monday · Abhijat Srivastava, Former CGST Officer 2011–2024 · Position as on 9 May 2026
Amendment28 Apr 2026
ITC reversal on credit notes — CBIC clarifies time limit under Sec 16(2)
Circular 220/2025 clarifies ITC reversal triggered by supplier credit notes must be completed within the same financial year. Annual reconciliation reliance no longer safe practice.
Expert view — Abhijat Srivastava, GSTArk
This narrows the ITC correction window significantly. Monthly ITC-2B matching protocol is now essential — not annual. This is a cash flow risk, not just compliance. Businesses relying on year-end reconciliation will face SCNs for periods where credit notes were not reversed in time. Position as on 9 May 2026.
Verified against Circular 220/2025 · Source available in GSTArk DB
HC Verdict22 Apr 2026
Allahabad HC — interest under Sec 50 not automatic on wrongly availed ITC if not utilised
Court held interest under Sec 50(3) arises only upon actual utilisation of ITC, not mere availment. Reverses departmental practice of demanding interest from date of availment.
Expert view — Abhijat Srivastava, GSTArk
File applications citing this immediately for pending SCNs where interest was demanded on availed-but-unutilised ITC. However, wait for SC confirmation before treating this as fully settled — CBIC has the option to challenge. Position as on 9 May 2026.
Allahabad HC 2026 · Retrieved from GSTArk database · 15,808 cases
GSTArk Issue Note #195 May 2026
Sec 74A — what the new merged provision means for your pending FY 2024-25 notices
The merged SCN provision under Sec 74A removes the fraud/non-fraud distinction that previously governed Sec 73 and 74. Effective FY 2024-25 onwards. Officers have lower evidentiary burden.
GSTArk Issue Note #19 — published every Monday · Share on WhatsApp →
My position after 12 years in CGST: Sec 74A is the most significant procedural change since Finance Act 2021. For FY 2024-25 matters, reconcile proactively before SCN is issued. The merged provision gives department more flexibility — which means taxpayers need better documentation. This Note has been verified against Finance Act 2025. Position as on 9 May 2026.
Issue Note #19 · 5 May 2026 · Verified against Finance Act 2025
Expert corner — Abhijat Srivastava
Why GSTArk is different
GSTArk is not an AI drafting tool. It is verified GST decision intelligence. The difference: every citation is traceable, every figure shows its basis, and the officer perspective comes from 12 years of CGST field experience — not from training data.
GSTAT finally operational
GST Appellate Tribunal benches are now operational. HC matters pending for years will move. File GSTAT appeals now for matters already at HC — the GSTAT route may be faster.
Action needed now
Sec 128A amnesty — last window
The amnesty scheme for FY 2017-18 to 2019-20 is the final opportunity to settle without penalty. Evaluate all pending matters — this window will not return.
Before 30 Jun 2026
Pattern cards — Your 200 GST decision cards
12-year institutional knowledge encoded in searchable decision cards · The moat no competitor can buy or replicate · Start with Buckets 1 and 2 · Write deeply before expanding
🧠 Pattern card — sample full card (ITC 2B mismatch)
TRIGGER PATTERN
ITC in GSTR-3B exceeds GSTR-2B by > threshold. BIFA analytics auto-flag. ASMT-10 auto-generated. Not targeted investigation.
DEPARTMENT LOGIC
Officer receives BIFA list → issues standard DRC-01 → routine processing → no independent verification of purchase records done at this stage.
STRONG DEFENSES
1. Supplier GSTR-1 filed late — recipient cannot be penalised. 2. Retrospective cancellation — purchase predates. 3. Bona fide purchase: invoice + payment + e-way. 4. Sec 74 inapplicable — no mens rea.
WEAK DEFENSES
"I didn't know supplier was cancelled" — irrelevant post-2021. "GSTN system error" — not accepted without GSTN certificate. "Goods are genuine" — insufficient alone without 2B reflection.
Based on: 847 notices · 234 OIOs · 89 appellate decisions
Expert: Abhijat Srivastava · CGST 2011-2024
Updated: 9 May 2026
🔗 Bucket 1 — ITC issues
20 cards · Write these first — 40%+ of all GST notices are ITC-related
2B mismatch — BIFA routine
DRC-01 · Sec 16(2)(aa) · Mechanical
Supplier retrospective cancellation
Recipient protection · 14 HC decisions
Fake invoice Sec 74
Fraud allegation · Mens rea required
Blocked credit Sec 17(5)(a) vehicles
ITC blocked · List vehicles carefully
Blocked credit food beverages
Sec 17(5)(b) · Exceptions exist
ITC reversal 180 days Sec 16(2)(b)
Non-payment to supplier
TRAN-1 transitional credit
Legacy credit · time-barred issue
ITC capital goods depreciation
Sec 16/18 · Depn not claimed
ITC distribution ISD Sec 20
Rule 39 errors · Pro-rata basis
Excess ITC over 2B large amount
BIFA flag · Targeted scrutiny
ITC without tax invoice Sec 16(2)(a)
Documentation defect
RCM ITC timing mismatch
Sec 9(3) · Sec 16(4) time limit
Credit note ITC reversal — Circ 220
Same FY rule · New 2025
ITC membership fees Sec 17(5)(b)(ii)
Blocked · Exceptions narrow
Rule 37A reversal non-filer
Rule 37A · System reversal
ITC hotel accommodation
Sec 17(5)(b)(i) · Exceptions
Common credit reversal exempt
Sec 17(2) · Pro-rata calculation
Works contract ITC Sec 17(5)(c)
Immovable property rule
ITC plant machinery Sec 17(5)(d)
Civil structure excluded
2A vs 2B transitional disputes
Transition period FY 2019-22
📈 Bucket 2 — Output tax issues
20 cards · Second priority — GSTR-1 vs 3B scrutiny is ASMT-10 routine
GSTR-1 vs 3B mismatch
ASMT-10 routine · Mechanical
Under-reporting turnover Sec 74
Aggressive · Suppression alleged
HSN classification rate dispute
AAR conflict · Tariff analysis
Place of supply error IGST
IGST Act Sec 12/13
Time of supply advance payment
Sec 12(2)(b) · Advance TOS
Related party undervaluation
Rule 28 · Open market value
Free samples Schedule I
Sec 7 taxability · Exceptions
Discount deduction Sec 15(3)
Conditions · Credit note needed
Export without LUT Rule 96A
IGST paid · Refund route
Works contract rate dispute
Sch II Entry 6 · Composite vs pure
Mixed supply Sec 8
Principal supply determination
Composite supply Sec 8
Sec 2(30) · Natural bundling
Import of services RCM
Sec 7(1)(b) · OIDAR services
E-commerce TCS Sec 52
Operator obligation
Real estate rate dispute
Sch II Entry 5(b) · Flat rate
Online gaming post-amendment
Sec 2(17) amended Oct 2023
Agricultural produce exemption
Nil rated vs exempt distinction
Job work vs manufacturing
Sec 2(68) · Principal supply
Circular trading GSTN flag
BIFA network analysis · Sec 74
Insurance premium RCM Sec 9(3)
RCM obligation · ITC on RCM
Remaining 8 buckets — write from 12 years of field experience
Write first 50 cards fully before expanding to 200. Quality over quantity. Each card with all 30 fields is worth more than 200 shallow cards.
Simple, transparent pricing
Start free for 15 days. No credit card required. Cancel anytime. Core promise: AI Powered GST Decision & Verified Legal Intelligence — not just drafting.
Free trial
₹0
15 days · no card required
3 drafts Both modes + AI chat Basic confidence layer Revenue implication summary PDF export GST news access
Starter
₹499
per month
20 drafts/month Both modes + AI chat Full confidence split (with basis) Officer thinking simulation GSTArk Recommendation (with basis) Limitation tracker PDF export
Most popular
Pro
₹999
per month
60 drafts/month All Starter features Full revenue implication breakdown Citation verification report Notice sustainability analysis Negative citation warnings Pattern cards access Version comparison Hearing note generator Pre-deposit calculator Writ maintainability check DOCX + citation report export
CA Professional
₹2,499
per month
Unlimited drafts All Pro features CA client dashboard Client summary notes Multi-matter deadline tracking Dual output (legal + client note) Department mode full access SCN Builder + OIO agents Priority support API access
GSTArk · gstark.ai · AI Powered GST Decision & Verified Legal Intelligence · 15,808 verified cases · 314 CBIC circulars · Anti-hallucination architecture · Every figure shows its basis · Guidance disclaimer on every draft
Tasks / New Draft — Choose mode
GSTArkTM keeps selected mode through task selection, upload, processing, and output routing.
Normal Chat Mode
Open the normal GSTArkTM chat workspace for GST questions, procedures, sections, circulars, and database-backed answers.
Taxpayer Mode
Open taxpayer-side task library for SCN replies, appeals, writ checks, hearing notes, risk analysis, and verified defense drafting.
Professional Mode
Open professional-side task library for SCNs, orders, audit reports, scrutiny notices, investigation reports, and sustainability checks.
Taxpayer Task Library
Selected mode: Taxpayer Defense, appeal, compliance, and risk workflows.
Professional Task Library
Selected mode: Professional Officer-side drafting, adjudication, audit, investigation, and legal sustainability workflows.
GSTArkTM Workspace
ModeTask
Add facts and instructions
Output is guidance only and requires professional review before filing, issuing, or relying upon it.
Upload documents
Drop SCN, OIO, GST returns, reconciliation, invoices, ledgers, notices, or appeal papers here. Static preview shows the workflow; production upload storage must be connected securely.
