Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE NO 286 ON PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN AMENDED GSTR-3B

GST UPDATE NO 286 ON PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN AMENDED GSTR-3B
The new format of GSTR-3B has been made applicable for the return filed for the month of August, 2022. We have already highlighted the complexities and the increased compliance burden on the assessee due to revised GSTR-3B format requiring proper accounting and presentation of ineligible input tax credit. In the present update, we seek to point out various other practical difficulties being faced by the assessees while filing their GSTR-3B in the new format.
Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to briefly summarise the changes made in the revised GSTR-3B format. Serial no. 4(A)(5) of the GSTR-3B pertains to all other ITC which will have figure of credit auto-populated from GSTR-2B. Serial no. 4(B) comprises of the details of ITC reversed. Serial no. 4(B)(1) pertains to ITC reversed as per Rule 38, 42, and 43 of CGST Rules and section 17(5). Moreover, serial no. 4(B)(2) will comprise of other reversal of credit. The matter does not end here as the assessee is also required to furnish the other details in serial no. 4(D). As per serial no. 4(D)(1), details of ITC reclaimed which was reversed under table 4(B)(2) in earlier tax period is to be reflected while in serial no. 4(D)(2), ineligible ITC under section 16(4) and ITC restricted due to POS provisions is to be reported.
We hereby discuss the various practical issues of presentation being faced by the assessees as follows:-
1. Treatment of non-issuance of credit note by the supplier for sales returns/short receipt:- At times, it is observed that there is short receipt of goods or sales returns for which the supplier does not issue any credit note. Resultantly, the recipient issues debit note and reverses the applicable input tax credit. The question arises is how to reflect the said input tax credit in the revised GSTR-3B. As the credit note is not being reflected in GSTR-2B, the recipient assessee needs to voluntarily reverse the proportionate input tax credit. The recipient assessee will reverse the credit in serial no. 4(B)(2) of the GSTR-3B on the basis of debit note raised by it. However, there is no clarity as to the treatment when the supplier actually issues the credit note and the same is being reflected in GSTR-2B subsequently. In such a situation, theserial no. 4(A)(5) will be auto-populated with lower input tax credit in the month in which the credit note is being reflected by the supplier but in reality, the assessee had already reversed the applicable input tax credit in earlier GSTR-3B. Now, the question arises is whether the recipient assessee can make adjustment by including such credit in serial no. 4(A)(5) when the credit note is being reflected in GSTR-3B? Moreover, will the recipient assessee need to reflect such credit in serial no. 4(D)(1) simultaneously? This will require the assessee to keep track record of debit notes and credit notes that are being reflected in GSTR-2B which will be a herculean task. A suitable clarification needs to be issued to address this difficulty by the government at the earliest possible.
2. Invoice reflected in GSTR-2A does not pertain to the assessee:- It is possible that certain invoices that are being reflected in GSTR-2A do not pertain to the assessee. However, with the revised format in operation, even such credit which do not pertain to the assessee will be part of serial no. 4(A)(5) of the GSTR-3B. Consequently, the assessee will reflect the said credit in serial no. 4(B)(2) as other credit reversal. But as per interpretation, this column stands for the credit to be claimed later on. But this credit is not to be claimed by taxpayer , hence a view is formed that it should be shown in 4(B)(1). But this is for specific clause of Rule, 42 and 43 of CGST Rules and Section 17(5) of CGST Act. Hence, it should be shown A(B)(2) only. This should be clarified by the department.
3. Invoice not received but the input tax credit reflected in GSTR-2B:- It is submitted that as input tax credit can be availed only when the assessee is in possession of valid GST invoice, the said credit will be reflected in serial no. 4(A)(5) of the GSTR-3B. Consequently, the assessee will reflect the said credit in serial no. 4(B)(1) if it is certain that the credit is ineligible. However, if the assessee is not sure whether the credit is eligible or ineligible, the said credit will be reflected in serial no. 4(B)(2) as other credit reversal. However, on receipt of valid GST invoice, such credit will have to be reflected in serial no. 4(A)(5) and 4(D)(1) if the credit is under eligible category. Again the ambiguity raised in earlier point will be raised. Hence, a suitable clarification from CBIC is solicited.
4. Invoice pertains to July month and reflected in GSTR-2B of July month but omitted from claiming in GSTR-3B:- There may be situation that invoice for the month of July, 2022 was omitted
from claiming in GSTR-3B which is now being claimed in the month of August, 2022. However, the said invoice was already reflected in GSTR-2B of July, 2022 and was also booked in the accounts of assessee. In such a case, the assessee will have to report the input tax credit pertaining to the said invoice in serial no. 4(A)(5) of the GSTR-3B of August, 2022. Moreover, the said credit also needs to be reflected in serial no. 4(D)(1) of the GSTR-3B as the inflated credit of serial no. 4(A)(5) needs to be re-conciled by the assessee. This is on the assumption that the assessee is in a way re-claiming the said input tax credit in the month of August, 2022 which was reflected in GSTR-2B of July month but could not be claimed for clerical mistake. It is to be assumed that omission is as good as reversing the said credit, similar to the situation of goods in transit. Although, some experts may opine that such an interpretation would lead to retrospective application of the new format which is not legally valid. A suitable clarification is needed from the government on this point.
5. Invoice pertains to June, 2022 but reflected in GSTR-2B of August, 2022 and booked in the month of August, 2022:- There may be situation that supplier has filed belated GSTR-1 for an invoice pertaining to the month of June, 2022 due to which the credit pertaining to the said invoice is being reflected in GSTR-2B of August, 2022. As the said invoice was not reflected in GSTR-2B for the month of June, 2022, the assessee did not record the said credit in their books of accounts. Now, the assessee will have to report the said credit pertaining to invoice raised in the month of June, 2022 in serial no. 4(A)(5) of the GSTR-3B. However, it is not required to reflect such credit in serial no. 4(D)(1) of the GSTR-3B because the said credit was not accounted for by the assessee in their books of accounts earlier.
The above problems are only illustrative and the actual difficulties will be encountered when the GSTR-3B returns are being regularly filed in the new format. It is hoped that the government issues suitable clarification to resolve various presentational disputes at the earliest possible so that objective of ease of doing business is achieved.
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com