Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update No 349 on Circular regarding differences in input tax credit in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A

GST Update No 349 on Circular regarding differences in input tax credit in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A

The discussion as regards to difference in input tax credit as available in GSTR-2A and as claimed in GSTR-3B during the initial phase of implementation of GST i.e. pertaining to Financial Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 has been a matter of discussion since long. The tax authorities time and again issue notices demanding explanations from the taxpayers for such discrepancies and for reversal of such ineligible input tax credit. To put an end to all these disputes and streamline the process, this issue is acknowledged by CBIC vide Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022. The detailed analysis of this is subject matter of our present update.

 

It is widely known that Form GSTR-2A was not available with the taxpayers on the common portal during the initial phase of GST. Also, the restriction as regards to availment of input tax credit as per GSTR-2A were effective from 09.10.2019 only. However, the availment of input tax credit was subject to fulfilment of conditions as mentioned under Section 16 of CGST Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.07.2017. The CBIC to bring uniformity and for the purpose of clarification, bifurcated the situation in 4 categorise which are as follows:

 

1.       The supplier failed to file GSTR-1 for a tax period and has filed GSTR-3B because of which supplies were not reflected in GSTR-2A of the recipient.

 

2.       The supplier has filed GSTR-1 as well as GSTR-3B for the tax period but has failed to report a supply in GSTR-1 because of which the same was not reflected in GSTR-2A as well.

 

3.       The supplies made to the registered person and invoice issued as per Rule 46 of CGST Rules containing GSTIN of the recipient but the said supply was wrongly reported as B2C instead of B2B. Resultantly, the supply was not reflected in GSTR-2A of the recipient.

 

4.       The supplier has filed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for the tax period but has declared the supply with wrong GSTIN of the recipient in GSTR-1. In this case, the proper officer of the actual recipient shall intimate the concerned jurisdictional officer of the assessee whose GSTIN was wrongly mentioned that the ITC in the said case is to be disallowed in case it is claimed in GSTR-3B. However, the allowance of ITC to actual recipient shall not be dependent on completion of this procedure by the tax authority.

 

In all of the above cases, it is clarified that the proper officer shall seek the details of invoices from the registered person and ascertain fulfilment of conditions as per Section 16 of CGST Act, 2017. Further, the proper officer shall also check any reversal of input tax credit as per Section 17 and 18 of CGST Act, 2017.

 

In alignment with the above, in case any discrepancy is noticed between ITC claimed in GSTR-3B and as per GSTR-2A, for the said Financial Year exceeding Rs. 5 Lakhs, the proper officer shall demand a certificate for the said supplier from the CA/CMA certifying that the supplies are actually made by the supplier to the registered person and tax on the same is paid by the said supplier in GSTR-3B. The certificate shall contain UDIN as well. However, in case the difference between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A is upto Rs. 5Lakhs for the Financial Year, the proper officer shall ask the claimant to produce a certificate of the supplier t the effect that supplies are actually made and tax is paid thereon.

 

However, it is clarified that for the FY 2017-18, as per the proviso to Section 16(4) of CGST Act, 2017, the aforesaid relaxation shall not be applicable to the claim of ITC made in GSTR-3B filed after the due date of furnishing return for the month of September, 2018. The above clarification, however, remains applicable in case of bonafide errors during FY 2017-18 and 2018-19. The instructions shall remain applicable only to ongoing investigation/scrutiny/audit and not on completed ones.

 

The circulars like above are what is expected from the Government’s end at the earliest to put a full stop on all kinds of discussions and debates. It is pertinent to note here that the CBIC has issued this Circular in line with Internal Circular No. 02A of 2022 dated 25.02.2022 released by Maharashtra Government. This is done to streamline the entire process, bring uniformity and avoid any further litigations on the subject matter.

But the relaxation from the time limit to file the return is not given in this case. Government has come with the scheme to file return belatedly for small taxpayers and waived the late fee for them. Hence, all these taxpayers have filed return late under the Government scheme. But now denial of credit to buyers of these taxpayers will again lead to complex situation for these suppliers. The buyers will not pay the GST amount to them or ask them to repay the same if already paid to them. When these taxpayers have acted on advice of Government and filed the return late with reduced late fees then denial of credit to their buyers means that Government is acting against them. When the tax has been paid to Government exchequer then the credit should be allowed to their buyers in these initial stage of implementation of GST.

 

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