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 ON RECTIFICATION IN GSTR-1 and 3B

GST UPDATE ON RECTIFICATION IN GSTR-1 and 3B
As per CGST ACT any registered person who has furnished the details under sub-section (1) for any tax period and which have remained unmatched under section 42 or section 43 can rectify such error or omission upon discovery and shall pay the tax and interest (if any) in case there is a short payment of tax on account of such error or omission, in the return to be furnished for such tax period. Such rectification of error or omission in respect of the details furnished under sub-section (1) is allowed till furnishing of the return under section 39 for the month of September following the end of the financial year to which such details pertain, or furnishing of the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier. In the view of above provision of Act The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in its recent decision in case of Abdul Mannan Khan v. the GST Council & Ors dismissed the petition of assessee to rectify GTSR -1 after the specified time limit in the law. Here the assesse inadvertently uploaded the sale invoice in name of unregistered person instead of registered person and made an application after one and half year for rectification in GSTR-1 due to restriction of ITC availment by buyer. Court ruled “the statute has provided a period of limitation for seeking rectification and the Court cannot condone the limitation period provided for rectification of GSTR-1 Form as per Section 37 of the under CGST Act and condoning such delay would make the provision otiose and open the floodgates for similar cases”. On the contrary Madras HC has recently allowed the writ petition in case of Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. v. Office of the GST Council and others. It was allowed on the reasoning that the asseesee can correct the human error in the GSTR -1. Court said that correction should be allowed for the inadvertent human error. Here the asseesee, while filing the GSTR -1 instead of GST number of purchaser in Aandhra Pradesh mentioned the GST number Uttar Pradesh. This writ petition has been allowed by Madras HC on the basis of decision in case of SUN DYE CHEM where the assessee while filing the GSTR-1 have wrongly filed the output tax as IGST instead of CGST, SGST and credit of the buyer was blocked. The error was noticed by buyer only after the last date of correction in GSTR -1 i.e. 31st march 2019. Court ruled that since the aseesee was not able to track mistake as the form GSTR -1A and and GSTR-2 was not operationalized. Therefore credit should not be blocked on the basis of inadvertent human error and the court directed permitting the petitioner to resubmit the annexures to GSTR-3B. The petitioner should not be mulcted with any liability on account of the bonafide, human error and the petitioner must be permitted to correct the same. In line with the above view Delhi HC in case of BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS where there was short claimed input of assessee was amounted to Rs 923 crore and the main reason of such non detection was non-operationalization of Forms GSTR-2A, GSTR-2, and GSTR-3. The High Court also affirmed that since the validations and verification checks proposed in CGST Act, 2017 could not be practically implemented due to lack of proper IT infrastructure, the petitioner could not be denied the opportunity of correcting its mistake in reflection of input tax credit, particularly when there is no mechanism to claim refund of tax paid by them in cash. Circular prescribing rectification of mistakes in subsequent returns is contrary to the return mechanism contained in section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. Restriction can be introduced by way of circular only if it is in conformity with the scheme of the Act and provisions contained therein. As the circular is going contrary to the scheme of the Act, the same should not be implemented. High Court allowed the petitioner to rectify GSTR-3B for the period July, 2017 to September, 2017. Based on the above case laws, we can say that authorities should also take lenient view in case of genuine and inadvertent human error by allowing the assesee to rectify the GST returns. Consequently, it will not block ITC of purchaser. If it is not done then it would be harsh on assessee as the purchaser will not pay the GST amount to supplier as credit is not available to him. But the amount has been paid in Government exchequer. Simply non- rectification of mistake for a period will deprive the taxpayer of its legitimate credit though the same has been deposited to Government. Such an approach coupled with technical glitches in portal will be very harsh for poor taxpayers in these difficult period of pandemic.
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