Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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