Goods and Services Tax : GST IMS allows taxpayers to accept, reject or keep invoices pending before ITC flows to GSTR-3B, ensuring better GST ITC reconcili...
Goods and Services Tax : The High Court ruled that GST authorities must mandatorily apply Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST before disallowing ITC due to return...
Goods and Services Tax : The court held that Section 74 cannot be used unless fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax is specif...
Goods and Services Tax : Learn why GSTR-2B, 2A, and books differ, how mismatches occur, and the steps founders must take to claim ITC correctly and stay au...
Goods and Services Tax : How AI-powered tools streamline GSTR-2A & GSTR-2B reconciliation for Chartered Accountants. Learn about automated GST reconciliati...
Goods and Services Tax : Recent amendments in GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C have increased compliance complexity, prompting calls for extended deadlines to allow accu...
Goods and Services Tax : GSTN – Upcoming changes/initiatives:- ♦ SMS based NIL Return filing for GSTR-3B and GSTR-1. ♦ Improvements in GSTR-2A to sho...
Goods and Services Tax : 1. Certain notified taxpayers have been issuing invoices after obtaining Invoice Reference Number (IRN) from Invoice Registration ...
Goods and Services Tax : Direct Taxes Professionals’ Association requested Hon’ble Finance Minister to allow filing of GSTR 9, 9A and 9C for the F.Y. 2...
Goods and Services Tax : GSTN enables taxpayers to know Input Tax Credit (ITC) eligibility at invoice level while filing Annual Return – Taxpayers ar...
Goods and Services Tax : The High Court set aside the GST demand for fresh adjudication after finding that the authorities had not properly examined stock ...
Goods and Services Tax : The Gujarat High Court held that a GST appeal filed within the additional condonable one-month period cannot be rejected mechanica...
Goods and Services Tax : The Karnataka High Court quashed ex-parte GST adjudication orders after the taxpayer claimed it could explain discrepancies betwee...
Goods and Services Tax : The case involved denial of input tax credit solely due to return mismatch without examining records. The Court held that such mec...
Goods and Services Tax : The court addressed denial of input tax credit due to mismatch with GSTR-2A and missing invoices. It allowed the taxpayer to seek ...
Goods and Services Tax : Read Circular No. 193/05/2023-GST from CBIC regarding the clarification on availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A ...
Goods and Services Tax : Clarification to deal with difference in Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed in FORM GSTR-3B as compared to that detailed in FORM GSTR-...
Goods and Services Tax : It has been noticed that in a few cases, certain records are not reflected in GSTR-2B statement for the period of April 2022. Howe...
Goods and Services Tax : Condition made under sub-rule (4) of rule 36 of the CGST Rules shall apply cumulatively for the tax period February, March, April,...
Goods and Services Tax : The GST Council, in its 39th meeting held on 14th March 2020, had recommended to adopt and implement the incremental approach of...
Madras High Court sets aside a GST demand order due to improper service, remanding the case with a condition to deposit 25% of the disputed tax.
Madras HC quashes GST order against Ragul Industries, allowing new evidence for GSTR 3B/2A/1 mismatches, subject to 25% tax deposit.
Madras High Court remanded the matter as notice in DRC-01A was merely uploaded in GST portal and hence petitioner was unaware about initiated proceedings. Further, petitioner directed to deposit 25% of disputed taxes.
Allahabad HC dismisses plea in Laxmi Telecom Vs State of U.P., ruling alternative statutory remedies are available for GST disputes. Key highlights inside.
Assessee’s petition against the under declaration of ineligible Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) would be heard when assessee would deposit 10% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The impugned order was issued thereafter on 29.04.2024. Assessee referred to the impugned order and pointed out that the reply was not considered by the proper officer because such reply was filed after four opportunities of personal hearing.
In a recent ruling Hon’ble Madras HC considered that there is mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A and petitioner is ready to pay 25 % of the total tax in dispute. HC granted on more opportunity to the petitioner after complying the directions.
Assessee should deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of four (4) weeks for a fresh hearing in matters engaging the discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns.
During the scrutiny of GST monthly returns for AY 2018-19, it was found that there existed a difference between the ITC available as per GSTR-2A and ITC availed as per GSTR-3B to the tune of Rs.10,22,809/- of IGST.
The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 22.03.2024 issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as the order dated 31.03.2024 issued u/s. 148A(d) of the Act.
