Whatsapp
ITC Reversal Under Rule 42 and 43: Why the GSTR-2B Auto-Reversal Formula Penalises Compliant Taxpayers for Vendor Defaults
Introduction
The Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework in India, introduced on 1 July 2017, was built on the promise of seamless Input Tax Credit (ITC) flow across the supply chain. For businesses making taxable and exempt supplies, or using inputs partly for business and non-business purposes, the law provides a structured mechanism to compute and reverse ITC not attributable to taxable output. This mechanism is governed principally by Rules 42 and 43 of the CGST Rules, 2017, read together with Section 17 of the CGST Act, 2017. What was originally designed as a proportionate apportionment tool has, over time, become a source of significant compliance stress for recipients, particularly after GSTR-2B became a mandatory matching requirement from January 2022. When a supplier fails to upload invoices in GSTR-1 or defaults on filing GSTR-3B, those invoices disappear from the buyer’s GSTR-2B, and the portal logic forces ITC Reversal Under Rule 42 and 43, even when the underlying transactions are genuine and taxes have been duly paid.
The Statutory Architecture: Section 17 and the Logic of Apportionment
Before examining ITC reversal under Rule 42 and 43 of the CGST Rules, 2017, it is crucial to understand their statutory basis: Section 17 of the CGST Act, 2017. Section 17 restricts Input Tax Credit (ITC) entitlement when goods or services are used partly for business and partly for other purposes. Section 17(1) specifies that if goods or services are used partly for business and partly for non-business purposes, ITC is allowed only for the portion used for business. Section 17(2) provides that when goods or services are used partly for taxable supplies—including zero-rated supplies—and partly for exempt supplies, ITC is restricted to the portion attributable to taxable supplies. These provisions create the need for a formula-based ITC reversal mechanism, which is implemented operationally through Rules 42 and 43 CGST, ensuring proportionate allocation of credit in mixed-use scenarios.[1]
Rule 42: The Formula for Inputs and Input Services
Rule 42 of the CGST Rules, 2017 governs ITC reversal in respect of inputs and input services used for a combination of taxable supplies, exempt supplies, and non-business purposes. The rule prescribes a detailed step-wise computation. The total ITC available, denoted as “T,” is first broken down into identifiable and common components. T1 represents credit specifically attributable to non-business or personal use; T2 is credit attributable to exempt supplies; T3 is credit on which reversal is mandated under Section 17(5) of the CGST Act (blocked credits); and T4 is credit exclusively attributable to taxable supplies, including zero-rated supplies. The first-level common credit, denoted C1, is computed as T minus (T1 + T2 + T3). After deducting T4 from C1, the residual pool is the common credit C2 — shared between taxable and exempt supplies, and between business and non-business use. [1] [2]
From C2, the actual reversal amounts are computed. D1 — the ITC attributable to exempt supplies — equals (E divided by F) multiplied by C2, where E is the aggregate value of exempt supplies during the tax period and F is the total turnover in the state of the registered person. D2, representing ITC attributable to non-business or personal use, is pegged at a flat 5% of C2. Together, D1 and D2 constitute the total amount to be reversed. Rule 42(1)(m) mandates that this reversal be reported in Form GSTR-3B or through Form GST DRC-03. Monthly provisional reversals are subject to final annual reconciliation before the due date of the GSTR-3B for the month of September of the following financial year. Where the annual aggregate of D1 and D2 exceeds provisional monthly reversals, the excess must be reversed with interest at the rate specified under Section 50(1) of the CGST Act. [1]
Rule 43: Reversal for Capital Goods
Rule 43 of the CGST Rules, 2017 applies a structurally distinct methodology to capital goods — long-life assets such as machinery, plant, equipment, and computers used in the business. Where capital goods are used exclusively for taxable or exempt supplies, the rule requires either full credit (for exclusively taxable use) or full reversal (for exclusively exempt use). For capital goods used commonly for both categories, Rule 43 assumes a useful life of sixty months and requires the total eligible ITC on such assets to be divided by sixty to arrive at a monthly credit unit (Tm). The aggregate of monthly credits across all capital goods in the common pool forms the base (Tc), and the reversal attributable to exempt supplies is Tc multiplied by the ratio of exempt turnover to total turnover. This sixty-month spreading mechanism prevents the front-loading of credit in the year of purchase and ensures proportionate attribution across the useful commercial life of the asset. [2]
Both Rule 42 and Rule 43 share the same foundational vulnerability: when supplier non-compliance distorts the ITC visible in the GST portal ecosystem, the computational base of the reversal formula gets skewed. Compliant buyers may either over-reverse — because their C2 is understated by missing vendor credits — or are made to reverse credits that were never practically usable, imposing a real cash-flow cost with no corresponding revenue benefit attributable to any failure of their own.
The GSTR-2B Mandate: Section 16(2)(aa) and the Turning Point of 2022
The introduction of clause (aa) to Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 through Section 109 of the Finance Act, 2021, notified via CBIC Notification No. 39/2021-Central Tax dated 21 December 2021 and made effective from 1 January 2022, fundamentally altered the conditions under which ITC can be availed. The inserted clause reads as follows: “(aa) the details of the invoice or debit note referred to in clause (a) has been furnished by the supplier in the statement of outward supplies and such details have been communicated to the recipient of such invoice or debit note in the manner specified under section 37.” In practice, this means that ITC can be availed only if the invoice appears in the recipient’s GSTR-2B — the static monthly auto-drafted ITC statement generated from the supplier’s GSTR-1 filings. The provisional ITC window previously available under Rule 36(4), which allowed recipients to claim a specified percentage of eligible ITC even when certain supplier invoices had not been uploaded, was simultaneously rendered redundant and withdrawn. [3]
GSTR-2B, unlike the live and rolling GSTR-2A, is a fixed monthly statement. If a supplier misses uploading an invoice in their GSTR-1 for a given period, that invoice is simply absent from the buyer’s GSTR-2B. The buyer cannot claim ITC on it — regardless of the validity of the underlying transaction, the genuineness of the invoice, or the fact that taxes were actually paid to the supplier. When this hard condition is applied on top of the Rule 42 reversal formula, which takes visible GSTR-2B credit as its operational starting point, compliant taxpayers find their eligible credit base artificially diminished by their vendor’s non-compliance. This is the structural fault line at the heart of the current ITC reversal architecture. [3]
Rule 37A: ITC Reversal for Supplier’s Non-Payment of Tax
The burden on recipients was formally codified through the insertion of Rule 37A into the CGST Rules, 2017 vide CBIC Notification No. 26/2022-Central Tax dated 26 December 2022. Operating alongside Section 41(2) of the CGST Act, Rule 37A prescribes that where a supplier fails to file their GSTR-3B for a tax period — meaning the tax collected from the buyer has effectively not been deposited into the government account — the recipient who has already claimed the corresponding ITC must reverse it by reporting the amount in Table 4(B)(2) of Form GSTR-3B. If done within the defined statutory deadline, no interest is attracted. If done after the deadline, interest at 24% per annum under Section 50 of the CGST Act runs from the date of utilisation. Once the defaulting supplier eventually files their GSTR-3B and deposits the tax, the recipient may re-avail the reversed ITC. [4]
The practical problem with Rule 37A is one of asymmetric information and timing. A recipient who received goods, holds a valid tax invoice, paid the full invoice value including GST, and filed their GSTR-3B in good faith may only discover months later that their supplier neglected to file GSTR-3B. The recipient had no means of preventing or even foreseeing that default at the time of the transaction. Yet the law requires reversal with potential interest consequences, for an omission that lies entirely on the supplier’s side — directly contradicting the foundational design of GST as a consumption-based tax where compliance at one stage should not nullify the benefit earned by compliance at another. [4]
The Judicial Response: Suncraft Energy and the Supreme Court’s Affirmation
The most consequential judicial resolution of the vendor-default-ITC-reversal controversy came in Suncraft Energy Private Limited and Another v. The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge and Others [MAT 1218 of 2023, Calcutta High Court, decided 2 August 2023]. The West Bengal GST authorities had reversed the ITC availed by Suncraft Energy on the ground that certain supplier invoices were not reflected in the appellant’s GSTR-2A for Financial Year 2017-18. The appellant produced valid tax invoices and bank statements demonstrating payment of the invoice value and the GST amount to the supplier, establishing compliance with all conditions under Section 16(2) of the CGST Act. The Assistant Commissioner had nevertheless issued a demand for ITC reversal without conducting any inquiry against the defaulting supplier. [5]
The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, comprising Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, set aside the demand order. The Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in Union of India v. Bharti Airtel Limited and Others [(2022) 4 SCC 328], in which it had been held that GSTR-2A functions only as a facilitative document for self-assessment and does not carry the force of law in determining ITC entitlement. The Calcutta High Court also drew upon the CBIC’s press release dated 4 May 2018, which stated expressly that there shall be no automatic reversal of ITC from the buyer on non-payment of tax by the seller, and that recovery must first be sought from the seller. The Court held that the authorities were not justified in proceeding against the recipient without first investigating the defaulting supplier. [5]
The Revenue challenged this ruling before the Supreme Court. On 14 December 2023, a bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the Special Leave Petition [SLP(C) No. 27827-27828 of 2023], thereby affirming the Calcutta High Court’s order. The Supreme Court’s decision effectively endorsed the principle that ITC cannot be automatically reversed from a compliant buyer merely because of a GSTR-2A or GSTR-2B mismatch attributable to supplier default, without the authorities first investigating and proceeding against the supplier. The ruling has been widely treated as a strong persuasive precedent across multiple High Courts and GST adjudication proceedings nationwide. [6] [7]
The constitutional underpinning for this position also finds support in the Delhi High Court’s earlier ruling in Arise India Limited and Others v. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes, Delhi and Others, where Section 9(2)(g) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 was struck down to the extent it denied ITC to genuine purchasers on account of a seller’s default — the court holding the provision to be violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The reasoning that penalising a bona fide buyer for a seller’s independent default is constitutionally impermissible has carried forward into GST-era judicial thinking. [5]
The Structural Injustice in Practice
The Rule 42 formula for computing D1 depends entirely on the pool of common credit C2 held by the recipient. When vendor defaults cause invoices to be absent from GSTR-2B, C2 is artificially understated. The D1 computation — (E/F) × C2 — then yields an incorrect result, making it impossible for the taxpayer to perform an accurate Rule 42 exercise in the first place. Separately, any ITC reversed under Rule 37A because of a supplier’s non-filing of GSTR-3B represents an additional, purely punitive cash outflow imposed by someone else’s administrative failure. The SCC Online commentary on clause (aa) to Section 16(2) has pointedly observed that for reverse charge mechanism supplies, the outcome is particularly inequitable: the recipient pays tax on behalf of the transaction, yet is denied the corresponding ITC merely because the supplier — who bears no GST liability — has not uploaded the invoice in time. [3]
The GST portal’s matching logic does not currently differentiate between ITC legitimately availed on genuine transactions where the supplier simply delayed uploading invoices, and ITC claimed fraudulently on fictitious transactions. Both are treated identically by the automated GSTR-2B gate, compelling honest businesses to contest their case in adjudication or court. This is an administrative design flaw with direct and measurable compliance costs, particularly for businesses with large, fragmented, or tier-two supplier bases. [4]
Interest, Penalties, and the Cost of Reversal
The financial consequences of ITC reversal extend well beyond the credit amount itself. Under Section 50(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, where the excess ITC reversal computed under Rule 42 or 43 is not made by September of the following financial year, interest at 18% per annum applies from 1 April of the succeeding year to the date of payment. Under Rule 37A, interest at 24% per annum under Section 50 runs from the date of utilisation of the ITC, if the reversal is made after the prescribed deadline. Demands raised under Section 73 of the CGST Act (non-fraud cases) carry a penalty of 10% of the tax or ₹10,000, whichever is higher; under Section 74 (fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression), the penalty can reach 100% of the tax demanded. For a taxpayer whose sole transgression was trusting a vendor who later defaulted — without any fraud or connivance on the recipient’s part — the invocation of Section 74 proceedings is both disproportionate and inconsistent with the principle that penal provisions must be construed narrowly. [2]
The Path Forward for Compliant Taxpayers
In the current legal landscape, compliant recipients must adopt a proactive, forensic approach to vendor management. Practically, this requires verifying GSTIN validity before engaging suppliers, tracking GSTR-1 filings by vendors monthly through the GST portal, reconciling purchase registers against GSTR-2B every month before filing GSTR-3B, and withholding the GST component of payment until the corresponding invoice appears in GSTR-2B. Where Rule 37A reversal is required because a supplier has not filed GSTR-3B, it should be executed within the statutory window to prevent interest accumulation, and re-availment should be claimed as soon as the supplier comes into compliance. For periods prior to January 2022, the absence of any statutory matching obligation under Section 16(2)(aa) forms the backbone of a valid defence to show-cause notices — a position fully supported by the Suncraft Energy ruling and the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the department’s appeal on 14 December 2023. [6] [8]
Conclusion
Rules 42 and 43 of the CGST Rules, 2017 play a crucial role in proportionately restricting Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the extent of taxable supply activity. The formula-based methodology—with its sequential calculation of T1 to T4, derivation of C1 and C2, and computation of D1 and D2—is technically robust when suppliers are fully compliant. Challenges arise when this precondition fails. The GSTR-2B-linked ITC reversal framework, combined with Section 16(2)(aa) and Rule 37A, can unfairly shift the financial burden of supplier non-compliance onto compliant buyers. The Suncraft Energy case, culminating in the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the department’s SLP on 14 December 2023, provides a critical judicial correction, confirming that ITC cannot be automatically reversed from a compliant recipient without prior investigation. Codifying this principle into law is essential to ensure the promise of seamless ITC under GST in India is not undermined by vendor defaults.
References
[1] CBIC, Rule 42 — Manner of Determination of Input Tax Credit in Respect of Inputs or Input Services and Reversal Thereof, CGST Rules 2017, available at: https://taxinformation.cbic.gov.in/content/html/tax_repository/gst/rules/cgst_rules/active/chapter5/rule42_v1.00.html
[2] Masters India, Rule 42 vs Rule 43 of GST — ITC Reversal Explained with Examples, available at: https://www.mastersindia.co/blog/itc-reversal-rule-42-rule-43/
[3] SCC Online Blog, Perils of Clause (aa) to Section 16(2) of the CGST Act for a Registered Person under GST, February 2023, available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/02/06/perils-of-clause-aa-to-section-162-of-the-cgst-act-for-a-registered-person-under-gst/
[4] ClearTax, Rule 37A of GST: ITC Reversal for Non-Payment of Tax by Supplier, available at: https://cleartax.in/s/gst-rule-37a-itc-reversal-for-non-payment-tax
[5] Indian Kanoon, Suncraft Energy Private Limited and Another v. The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge and Others, MAT 1218 of 2023, Calcutta High Court, 2 August 2023, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110803637/
[6] TaxScan, Supreme Court Upholds Calcutta HC Verdict Granting GST ITC Despite GSTR-2A/3B Mismatch — Suncraft Energy, 15 December 2023, available at: https://www.taxscan.in/supreme-court-upholds-calcutta-hc-verdict-granting-gst-itc-in-spite-of-gstr-2a-3b-mismatch-to-purchaser-except-in-exceptional-cases/353280/
[7] EY India, SC Dismisses SLP Regarding ITC Mismatch in GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, Tax Alert, December 2023, available at: https://www.ey.com/en_in/technical/alerts-hub/2023/12/sc-dismisses-slp-regarding-itc-mismatch-in-gstr-2a-and-gstr-3b
[8] H N A & Co LLP, Response to GST Notice for GSTR-2A vs GSTR-3B Difference, available at: https://hnallp.com/a/response-to-gst-notice-for-gstr2a-v-gstr3b-difference
[9] Grant Thornton Bharat, SC Dismisses Appeal Against Calcutta HC Order — ITC Cannot be Denied Due to Supplier’s Default, Tax Alert, December 2023, available at: https://www.grantthornton.in/globalassets/1.-member-firms/india/assets/pdfs/alerts/gt_tax_alert_sc_dismisses_appeal_against_the_calcutta_hcs_order_affirming_that_itc_cannot_be_denied_due_to_default_of_supplier_to_pay_tax.pdf
