The program, implemented pursuant to Section 148 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, focuses on taxpayers who were unable to challenge orders issued by the appropriate officer on or before March 31, 2023, under Sections 73 or 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Furthermore, it encompasses situations where appeals were dismissed solely because they were not filed within the designated timeframe outlined in Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.

In exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby notifies taxable persons who could not file an appeal against the order passed by the proper officer on or before the 31st day of March, 2023 under section 73 or 74 of the said Act (hereinafter referred to as the said order), within the time period specified in sub-section (1) of section 107 read with sub-section (4) of section 107 of the said Act, and the taxable persons whose appeal against the said order was rejected solely on the grounds that the said appeal was not filed within the time period specified in section 107, as the class of persons (hereinafter referred to as the said person) who shall follow the following special procedure for filing appeals in such cases.

The said person shall file an appeal against the said order in FORM GST APL-01 in accordance with subsection (1) of Section 107 of the said Act, on or before 31st day of January 2024.

Provided that an appeal against the said order filed in accordance with the provisions of section 107 of the said Act, and pending before the Appellate Authority before the issuance of this notification, shall be deemed to have been filed in accordance with this notification, if it fulfills the condition specified at para 3 below.

No appeal shall be filed under this notification, unless the appellant has paid-
(a) in full, such part of the amount of tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty arising from the impugned order, as is admitted by him; and
(b) a sum equal to twelve and a half per cent. of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising from the said order, subject to a maximum of twenty-five crore rupees, in relation to which the appeal has been filed, out of which at least twenty percent should have been paid by debiting from the Electronic Cash Ledger.

No refund shall be granted on account of this notification till the disposal of the appeal, in respect of any amount paid by the appellant, either on their own or on the directions of any authority (or) court, in excess of the amount specified in para 3 of this notification before the issuance of this notification, for filing an appeal under subsection (1) of Section 107 of the said Act.

No appeal under this notification shall be admissible in respect of a demand not involving tax.

The provisions of Chapter XIII of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (12 of 2017), shall mutatis mutandis, apply to an appeal filed under this notification.

To know more about GST Amnesty Scheme, click here.

To Download official notification, click here.

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship.

The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post Deadline for filing belated or rejected appeals under the GST Amnesty Scheme for Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal set for 31st January 2024 appeared first on Chartered Accountancy Firm | Y G C O & Co.

As per the Amendment made by the Finance Act, 2023 of section 43B which states that :

Quote

“Following clause (h) shall be inserted after clause (g) of section 43B by the Finance Act, 2023, w.e.f. 1-4-2024:

(h) any sum payable by the assessee to a micro or small enterprise beyond the time limit specified in section 15 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (27 of 2006), shall be allowed (irrespective of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred by the assessee according to the method of accounting regularly employed by him) only in computing the income referred to in section 28 of that previous year in which such sum is actually paid by him.” 

Unquote

As per the Amendment made by the Finance Act, 2023 clause (h) shall be inserted after clause (g) of section 43B which says that if assessee makes payment to micro or small enterprises beyond the limit specified in section 15 of the MSME Act, 2006 then deduction of such payment shall not be allowed in the previous year in which payment is due rather it shall be allowed in the previous year in which payment is made.

This provision does not apply to expenses specified under section 43B when the payment is made on or before the due date of return filing for the previous year in which the liability was incurred, except for clause (h) pertaining to payments made to micro or small enterprises.

Section 15 of MSME Act, 2006

As per this section, buyer is liable to make payment within a period of 15 days if there is not agreed date of payment and in case if there is agreed date of payment then agreed date or maximum 45 days whichever is earlier. If buyer fails to make payment for goods or services supplied by an MSME then buyer shall be liable to pay compound interest to the supplier on the amount due, as per the rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and along with interest as per the latest amendment made by Finance Act, 2023 in section 43B buyer shall also not be allowed to claim deduction of such payment under the head ‘Income from business and Professions’. But this amendment is applicable for only micro or small enterprises.

Following examples can be referred to get a better understanding of the above:

Example 1:

If goods or services are sold or rendered by micro or small enterprises and the agreed date is 26.07.2023 and the payment is made by the buyer on 20.02.2024, then it will be considered allowable in the Assessment Year 2024-25. This is because the payment has been made more than 45 days after the agreed date, as stated in section 15, but still within the same Assessment Year.

Example 2:

If goods or services are sold and rendered by micro or small enterprises on 10.02.2024 and the payment is made on 05.04.2024, then it will be disallowed for the current Assessment Year 2024-25. This is because the payment has been made more than 45 days not within the same Assessment Year 2024-25. However, it will be allowed in the subsequent Assessment Year 2025-26.

The recent amendment to Section 43B, which pertains to MSMEs, has a positive impact on micro and small enterprises. This is because many suppliers purchase goods or services from these enterprises but fail to make payments on the due date, causing significant hardship for the MSMEs. However, with the latest amendment, buyers will now be able to claim a deduction for the payment in the current or previous year, but only if the payment is made within 45 days from the agreed date or within 15 days if no specific agreement is in place. If the payment is made beyond these time limits, it will be allowed as a deduction in the previous year in which the payment is made.

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship.

The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post Section 43B(h) of the Income Tax Act in relation to the amendment concerning MSME (Small & Micro) holds significant importance. appeared first on Chartered Accountancy Firm | Y G C O & Co.

The Madras High Court made a noteworthy legal decision when it addressed a writ petition that contested an order issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) on March 1, 2023. The petition, filed by Rekha.S, shed light on a peculiar situation where a GST assessment order was issued against a deceased individual named M.K.Girish, who operated a business called “M/s.M.K.M.& Sons.” The court’s judgment thoroughly examines the complexities of the case and the potential consequences for the deceased person’s legal heirs.

This writ petition was filed challenging the impugned order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased M.K.Girish, who was running business in the name of “M/s.M.K.M.& Sons”. The said M.K.Girish was passed away on 25.02.2021 and the same was intimated to the respondent by way of online application dated 29.06.2022.

Further, GST DRC-01A dated 06.07.2022 and GST DRC-01 dated 21.11.2022 was issued by the respondent in the name of deceased M.K.Girish. Thereafter, the aforesaid impugned assessment order was also passed by the respondent on 01.03.2023 against the dead person. However, the petitioner contended that the said assessment order is liable to be set aside, since the said proceedings were initiated against a dead person.

In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that GST DRC-01A dated 06.07.2022 and GST DRC-01 dated 11.2022 was issued against the dead person. Further, the said notices may be treated as notice to all the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the M.K.Girish and the petitioners can file their reply to the said notices, thereafter, the respondent will pass appropriate orders after providing sufficient opportunities to the petitioners.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and also perusing the materials available on record, the fact remains that the impugned assessment order came to be passed against the dead person, which is non-est in law and hence, it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the said impugned order dated 01.03.2023 should be set aside.

The Madras Court was of the considered view that the petitioners shall consider the notice issued by the respondent dated 06.07.2022 as a notice issued to them as on date. Thus, the petitioners are directed to file a reply to the said notice within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondent were directed to pass appropriate orders after providing opportunities of personal hearing to the petitioner.

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No cost.

To Download full order, click here.

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship.

The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post The Madras High Court has reversed the GST assessment on the deceased, providing relief to the legal heirs. appeared first on Chartered Accountancy Firm | Y G C O & Co.

In order to facilitate the taxpayers in correct and accurate reporting of ITC reversal and reclaim thereof and to avoid clerical mistakes, a new ledger namely Electronic Credit and Re-claimed Statement was introduced on the GST portal. This statement was made available to help the taxpayers in tracking of their ITC that has been reversed in Table 4B(2) and thereafter re-claimed in Table 4D(1) and 4A(5).

Now to facilitate taxpayers further, opportunity to declare opening balance for ITC reversal in the statement has been extended till 31st January, 2024.

Kindly note that after declaring the opening balance for ITC reversal, only three amendment opportunities post the declaration will be provided to correct declared opening balance in case of any mistakes or inaccuracies in reporting.

Facility to amend declared opening balance for ITC reversal will be available till 29th February, 2024.

Detailed advisory that released on 31st August, 2023 is given below:

Introducing Electronic Credit Reversal and Re-claimed statement on GSTN

The Government has notified certain changes in Table 4 of Form GSTR-3B to enable taxpayers in reporting correct information regarding ITC availed, ITC reversal, ITC re-claimed and ineligible ITC vide Notification No. 14/2022 – Central Tax dated 05th July, 2022 (read with circular 170/02/2022-GST, Dated 6th July, 2022). Accordingly, the reclaimable ITC earlier reversed in Table 4(B)2 may be subsequently claimed in Table 4(A)5 on fulfilment of necessary conditions. Such reclaimed ITC in Table 4(A)5 also needs to be explicitly reported in Table 4D(1).

1) In order to facilitate the taxpayers in correct and accurate reporting of ITC reversal and reclaim thereof and to avoid clerical mistakes, a new ledger namely Electronic Credit and Re-claimed Statement is being introduced on the GST portal. This statement will help the taxpayers in tracking of their ITC that has been reversed in Table 4B(2) and thereafter re-claimed in Table 4D(1) and 4A(5) for each return period, starting from August return period.

2) This statement shall facilitate that while re-claiming ITC in GSTR-3B, the amount aligns appropriately with the corresponding reversed ITC. This aims to improve the overall consistency and correctness of ITC reversal and re-claims related transactions. For Monthly taxpayers, the specified return period pertains to August 2023. For those filing quarterly returns, the specified return period corresponds to Q2 of the financial year 2023-24, encompassing the months of July-September 2023.

3) Taxpayers are being provided a facility to report their cumulative ITC reversal (ITC that has been reversed earlier and has not yet been reclaimed) as opening balance for “Electronic Credit Reversal and Re-claimed Statement”, if any.

The navigation to report ITC reversal balance: Login >> Report ITC Reversal Opening Balance. or Services >> Ledger >> Electronic Credit Reversal and Re-claimed Statement >> Report ITC Reversal Opening Balance

a. Taxpayers having monthly filing frequency are required to report their opening balance considering the ITC reversal done till the return period of July 2023.

b. In contrast, quarterly taxpayers shall report their opening balance up to Q1 of the financial year 2023-24, considering the ITC reversal made till the April-June 2023 return period.

c. The taxpayers have the opportunity to declare their opening balance for ITC reversal until 30th November 2023.

d. The taxpayers shall also be provided 3 (three) amendment opportunities to correct their opening balance in case of any mistakes or inaccuracies in reporting. Importantly, until 30th November 2023, both reporting and amendment facilities are accessible.

e. However, after 30th November till 31st December 2023, only amendments will be permitted and the option for fresh reporting will not be available. This amendment facility shall be discontinued after 31st December 2023.

4) With the provision for taxpayers to report their accumulated ITC reversal balance, the portal will subsequently maintain a record of reversal and re-claimed amounts on a return period basis in statement. Hence, a validation mechanism is incorporated into the GSTR-3B form. This validation will trigger a warning message if a taxpayer attempts to re-claim excess ITC in table 4D(1) than the available ITC reversal balance in the statement along with ITC reversal made in current return period in Table 4B(2).

This warning message would facilitate accurate reporting but the taxpayers will still have the option to proceed with filing. However, the taxpayers are advised not to reclaim ITC exceeding the closing balance of “Electronic Credit Reversal and Re-claimed Statement” and may report their pending reversed ITC, if any, as ITC reversal opening balance.

5) For monthly taxpayers, the warning message will commence appearing from the GSTR-3B filing for the August 2023 return period. Similarly, for quarterly taxpayers this warning message would start from the filing period covering July to September 2023.

For Downloading official advisory, click here.

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship.

The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post Reporting of ITC reversal opening balance due date shifted till 31st January 2024. appeared first on Chartered Accountancy Firm | Y G C O & Co.

Attention is invited to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment dated 19.5.2022 in the case of CC, CE & ST, Bangalore (Adj.) etc. Vs. Northern Operating Systems Private Limited (NOS) in Civil Appeal No. 2289-2293 of 2021 on the issue of nature of secondment of employees by overseas entities to Indian firms and its Service Tax implications. Representations have been received in the Board that, subsequent to the aforesaid judgment, many field formations have initiated proceedings for the alleged evasion of GST on the issue of secondment under section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CGST Act’).

2.1 The matter has been examined by the Board. It appears that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment inter-alia took note of the various facts of the case like the agreement between NOS and overseas group companies, and held that the secondment of employees by the overseas group company to NOS was a taxable service of ‘manpower supply’ and Service Tax was applicable on the same. It is noted that secondment as a practice is not restricted to Service Tax and issue of taxability on secondment shall arise in GST also. A careful reading of the NOS judgment indicates that Hon’ble Supreme Court’s emphasis is on a nuanced examination based on the unique characteristics of each specific arrangement, rather than relying on any singular test.

2.2 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Versus M/s Fiat India(P) Ltd in Civil Appeal 1648-49 of 2004 has given the following observation –

“66. ………..Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because either a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive.”

2.3 It may be relevant to note that there may be multiple types of arrangements in relation to secondment of employees of overseas group company in the Indian entity. In each arrangement, the tax implications may be different, depending upon the specific nature of the contract and other terms and conditions attached to it. Therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the NOS judgment should not be applied mechanically in all the cases. Investigation in each case requires a careful consideration of its distinct factual matrix, including the terms of contract between overseas company and Indian entity, to determine taxability or its extent under GST and applicability of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in NOS case.

3.1 It has also been represented by the industry that in many cases involving secondment, the field formations are mechanically invoking extended period of limitation under section 74(1) of the CGST Act.

3.2 In this regard, section 74 (1) of CGST Act reads as follows:

“(1) Where it appears to the proper officer that any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilized by reason of fraud, or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, “

3.3 From the perusal of wording of section 74(1) of CGST Act, it is evident that section 74(1) can be invoked only in cases where there is a fraud or wilful mis- statement or suppression of facts to evade tax on the part of the said taxpayer. Section 74(1) cannot be invoked merely on account of non-payment of GST, without specific element of fraud or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts to evade tax. Therefore, only in the cases where the investigation indicates that there is material evidence of fraud or wilful mis- statement or suppression of fact to evade tax on the part of the taxpayer, provisions of section 74(1) of CGST Act may be invoked for issuance of show cause notice, and such evidence should also be made a part of the show cause notice.

4. The above aspects may be kept in consideration while investigating such cases and issuing show cause notices.

5. Difficulties, if any, in implementation of these instructions may be informed to the Board (gst-cbec@gov.in).

To Download official instruction, click here.

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship.

The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post GST officials are instructed by CBIC not to invoke Section 74(1) merely on non-payment of GST. appeared first on Chartered Accountancy Firm | Y G C O & Co.

As per the rule, where the amount of ITC availed by a registered person for a tax period furnished by him in FORM GSTR-3B exceeds the ITC available to such person in FORM GSTR-2B which contains the details of ITC in respect of the said tax period, by such amount and such percentage, as may be recommended by the Council, the said registered person shall be intimated of such difference in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01C electronically on the GST portal, and a copy of such intimation shall also be sent to his e-mail address provided at the time of registration or as amended from time to time.

The system-based intimation under proposed rule 88D to the relevant registered person may be provided in situations where the difference between the ITC claimed in FORM GSTR-3B and ITC available as per FORM GSTR-2B is greater than 20% as well as more than Rs.25 lakhs, according to the minutes book of the 50th GST Council meeting.

GST Portal is also following the above-mentioned limits. Please note that the word ‘Prescribed’ has not been used in Rule 88D, which means that the limits need not be notified by a separate notification & a recommendation in the Council meeting would suffice.

To Download Council Meeting minutes book, click here.

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship.

The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post DRC-01C Notice will be intimated, if GST ITC Mismatch is more than 20% as well as more than 25 lakhs (GST council discussions) appeared first on Chartered Accountancy Firm | Y G C O & Co.

To answer frequently asked questions about the Discard ITR Option, the tax department has published FAQs. Here’s everything you need to know about the recently added ability for taxpayers to discard their unverified income tax returns (ITRs) on the income tax website.

1)Taxpayers can avail of the option of “Discard” for the ITRs being filed u/s 139(1) /139(4) / 139(5) if they do not want to verify it.

2)However, if the “ITR filed u/s 139(1)” is discarded and the subsequent return is filed after the due date u/s 139(1), it would attract implications of belated return like 234F, etc., 

3) To access the ‘Discard’ option, users can follow the specified pathway on the income tax website. On the income tax portal, users can find the Discard option www.incometax.gov.in → Login → e-File → Income Tax Return → e-Verify ITR → “Discard”

4) Users can avail of this option only if the ITR status is “unverified” / “Pending for verification”. 

5) Users can utilize the discard option repeatedly as long as the ITR status remains unverified or pending verification.

6) The feature is available for AY 2023-24 onwards.

7) This option will be available only till the time limit specified for filing ITR u/s 139(1)/139(4) /139(5) (i.e., 31st December of respective AY as of now).

8) Once an ITR is discarded, it cannot be reinstated, making the action irreversible and essentially disclaiming the filing of the ITR.

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship.

The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post Important update related to “Discard ITR” option on the income tax portal appeared first on Chartered Accountancy Firm | Y G C O & Co.

Sri. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, prays for and is allowed one week time to file affidavit on what basis different treatment is sought to be given to the assessee/dealers who had filed their GSTR-9/9C with delay before 01.04.2023 and those who have filed their GSTR-9/9C between 01.04.2023 to 31.08.2023 as provided in notification issued by the CBIC dated 31.03.2023 for waiver of the amount of late fee referred to in Section 47 of the CGST Act.

This Court is of the prima facie view that any person who has filed GSTR 9/9C in respect of the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020- 21, 2021-22 up to 31st August, 2023 should be eligible for the concessional late fee as mentioned in the said notification otherwise it would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in as much as no intelligible differentia is coming out from the Scheme to differentiate an assessee/dealer who had filed GSTR-9/9C before 1st April, 2023 and an assessee/dealer who has filed GSTR-9/9C in between 1st April, 2023 to 31st August, 2023.

This Court is of the view that any assessee/dealer who has filed the returns in GSTR-9/9C in respect of the financial years from 2017-18 to 2021-22 before 31st August, 2023 should be eligible for concessional rate of late fee as prescribed in the said notification.

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship.

The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post Benefit of concessional fees to be given to taxpayers who filed GSTR 9/9C of FY 2017-18 onwards even before 31.08.2023. (Kerala HC) appeared first on Chartered Accountancy Firm | Y G C O & Co.

The government notified the creation of GST Appellate Tribunals on October 27, 2023.

The industry is expected to contest unfavorable GST orders in a sizeable number, according to additional sources. However, the business community has requested that the Government consider reducing the amount of the pre-appeal deposit.

Before submitting an appeal, GST assessors must pay a pre-appeal deposit equal to 30% of the GST demand. The pre-GST cap of ₹25 crore has been raised to ₹50 crore for the maximum pre-appeal deposit in high-value CGST cases.

In the representation, many industries have mentioned that the high pre-appeal deposit amount will hurt the working capital of many firms.

In a same vein, the highest pre-appeal deposit in high-value IGST cases has been raised to ₹100 crore. In the first phase, the government plans to establish 32 benches of GST Appellate Tribunals.

The 32 benches of the GST Appellate Tribunal will consist of one national bench and thirty-one state benches. Larger states will likely have two benches, while smaller states are likely to have one. According to sources, the government intends to increase the number of state-level GST Appellate Tribunals to 62 in the second phase. Experts assert that the tribunals were highly anticipated and desperately needed.

The absence of a GST Appellate Tribunal, which continued long after the GST statute was put into effect, was one glaring flaw in the GST administration. The Tribunal has been established by the administration gradually.

The locations of the benches, which will be dispersed among 31 states, were announced on September 14. As of right now, the President’s nomination, terms of office, and member rules are described in a notice published by the government on October 25. The hiring and selection process can now begin, as this is a significant step in the right direction. As soon as the process is complete, the tribunals ought to start operating, according to Najib Shah, the former CBIC chairman.

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship.

The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post GST Appellate Tribunals are expected to receive tonnes of appeals amounting to more than ₹1 trillion appeared first on Chartered Accountancy Firm | Y G C O & Co.

In the matter of M/s. Henna Medicals, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court rendered a decision by granting the writ petition, ruling that the discrepancy between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B is not a reason to reject an application for Input Tax Credit (“ITC”). As a result, the Revenue Department was instructed to review the documentation submitted by the assessee and issue new orders in accordance with the findings.

Facts of the case

M/s. Henna Medicals (“the Petitioner”) claimed ITC on Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) paid was rejected by the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) on the ground that there was a difference between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B vide Order dated December 28, 2021 and Recovery Notice dated September 2, 2023. (“the Impugned Order”)

Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Petitioner filed a writ petition praying for setting aside the Impugned Order and claiming ITC for Rs.2,58,116/- along with interest and penalty. The total amount comes to approximately Rs.4,58,156/-.

Held

The Honourable Kerala High Court held, on the basis of the ruling rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the State of Karnataka v. M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited case [Civil Appeal No. 230 of 2023 dated March 13, 2023], Moreover, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court’s ruling in M/s Suncraft Energy Private Limited and Others vs. The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge [MAT 1218 of 2023 dated August 2, 2023] noted that the ITC claim should not be rejected based solely on the distinction between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B.

The Hon’ble Kerala High Court further noted, citing its ruling in M/s Diya Agencies vs. State Tax Officer [WP (C) 29769/2023 dated September 12, 2023], that the distinction between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B should not be the only reason an ITC claim is denied when there is documentation available to support the claim’s validity. Consequently, instructed the Assessing Authority to provide the assessee with a chance to present proof in favour of his ITC claim.

Directed that, the matter be remitted back to Respondent for the purpose of examination of the evidence of the Petitioner for claiming ITC and after examination of evidence, the Respondent passes fresh orders in accordance with law.

Additionally, it is directed that the Petitioner present himself to the Respondent Officer with all the proof necessary to substantiate his ITC claim.

To Download full order, click here.

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship.

The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B differences are inadmissible as justification for denying ITC. appeared first on Chartered Accountancy Firm | Y G C O & Co.