Goods and Services Tax : The article explains how IMS makes accepted invoice records the basis for ITC eligibility, strengthening compliance, fraud detecti...
Goods and Services Tax : The article explains how the GSTAT held that a mere mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B is insufficient to invoke Section 74 witho...
Goods and Services Tax : GSTAT held that a mere mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B does not automatically establish tax evasion or justify proceedings und...
Goods and Services Tax : The issue concerns confusion regarding the purpose and sequencing of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B filings. The key takeaway is that GSTR-1 s...
Goods and Services Tax : ICAI clarified that ITC wrongly reversed under Table 4(B)(1) instead of Table 4(B)(2) can still be reclaimed within statutory time...
Goods and Services Tax : The Government introduced reforms such as e-invoicing and auto-population of data in GST returns. These measures improve accuracy,...
Goods and Services Tax : ICAI writes to CBIC requesting a one-week extension for the September 2025 GSTR-3B due date, citing the Diwali festival period and...
Goods and Services Tax : Important change in Table 6 of GSTR-9 for FY 24-25 - Taxpayers can now report ITC of previous financial year that was claimed in ...
Goods and Services Tax : BCAS requests extension of GSTR-3B filing and payment deadline for Sep 2025, arguing the original date of Oct 20 coincides with Di...
Goods and Services Tax : Due to severe floods in Maharashtra, MCTC has requested a three-day extension for the GSTR-3B filing deadline, citing hardships fa...
Goods and Services Tax : The assessment was based on four discrepancies: reconciliation issues between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, input tax credit (ITC) mismatch ...
Goods and Services Tax : The Karnataka High Court ruled that ITC for FY 2018-19 cannot be denied merely because import and SEZ transactions were absent fro...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court remanded an ex parte assessment arising from a GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch after finding that the assessee ...
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 : Gauhati High Court rules GSTR-1 vs GSTR-3B mismatch from clerical errors cannot trigger automatic tax recovery without Rule 88C pr...
Goods and Services Tax : CBIC extends due date for filing March 2026 GSTR-3B to April 21, 2026, for registered persons under Section 39 of the CGST Act....
Goods and Services Tax : GSTN clarified that system-calculated interest for February 2026 was incorrectly reflected in March returns due to a technical iss...
Goods and Services Tax : GST Portal revises interest computation in GSTR-3B, factoring minimum cash ledger balance and auto-populating non-editable interes...
Goods and Services Tax : GST Network has issued an advisory introducing significant system enhancements in GSTR-3B beginning with the January 2026 tax peri...
Goods and Services Tax : The advisory clarifies that from November 2025, auto-populated values in Table 3.2 of GSTR-3B cannot be manually edited. Any corre...
The article explains how IMS makes accepted invoice records the basis for ITC eligibility, strengthening compliance, fraud detection, and GST return verification.
The article explains how the GSTAT held that a mere mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B is insufficient to invoke Section 74 without evidence of fraud or suppression. It also outlines practical steps for responding to mismatch notices.
GSTAT held that a mere mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B does not automatically establish tax evasion or justify proceedings under Section 74. The Tribunal emphasized that the department must first verify records, undertake reconciliation, and prove fraud or suppression.
The assessment was based on four discrepancies: reconciliation issues between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, input tax credit (ITC) mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, declaration of ineligible ITC, and invalid ITC under Section 16(4) of the GST Act.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that ITC for FY 2018-19 cannot be denied merely because import and SEZ transactions were absent from GSTR-2A. The Court held that GSTR-2A did not capture such data during the relevant period, making the demand unsustainable.
The Madras High Court remanded an ex parte assessment arising from a GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch after finding that the assessee should be allowed to present its case. Relief was granted subject to deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount.
The issue concerns confusion regarding the purpose and sequencing of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B filings. The key takeaway is that GSTR-1 should be filed first to ensure proper ITC flow and avoid reconciliation mismatches and scrutiny.
ICAI clarified that ITC wrongly reversed under Table 4(B)(1) instead of Table 4(B)(2) can still be reclaimed within statutory timelines. The FAQs explain how taxpayers can rectify such reporting errors through future GSTR-3B adjustments.
GST IMS allows taxpayers to accept, reject or keep invoices pending before ITC flows to GSTR-3B, ensuring better GST ITC reconciliation.
The Karnataka High Court quashed ex-parte GST adjudication orders after the taxpayer claimed it could explain discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns. The matters were remanded back for fresh consideration after granting an opportunity to reply.
