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...
During the scrutiny of the petitioner’s monthly return, it was found that there was a short payment of taxes due to excess claim of Input Tax Credit and alleged mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A/GSTR-2B.
Madras High Court held that as requested by the petitioner, an opportunity of heard will be granted on payment of deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount since petitioner failed to respond to notice in DRC-01.
Madras High Court held that due to non-compliance against notice issued in DRC-01A, the petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and petitioner will be granted opportunity of being heard on payment of the amount.
Madras High Court held that due to non-compliance with notice issued under GST, the petitioner is required to deposit 25% of disputed tax and post deposit of amount, the petitioner will be granted an opportunity of being heard.
Madras High Court held that order confirming demand due to mismatch between returns under GST set aside with condition to deposit 25% of disputed tax amount since petitioner neither replied to DRC-01 and neither attended personal hearing.
Madras High Court set aside order passed in respect of excess claim of input tax credit, due to non-appearance on the part of petitioner, with the condition to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount. Directed to grant opportunity of being heard on payment of required amount.
Telangana High Court held that nature of supply of works contract executed in two states is intra-state, accordingly, tax liability shall be discharged individually in each state to the extent of proportion of works executed.
During the relevant period, the petitioner filed its return and paid the appropriate taxes. While scrutinizing the petitioner’s monthly return, it was noticed that there was mismatch between GSTR-01 and GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A/2B.
Explore Section 61 of CGST Act, covering scrutiny of GST returns, officer’s authority, taxpayer obligations, and implications for compliance and discrepancies.
Madras High Court held that since petitioner failed to respond to notice issued for mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A and non-payment of interest, it is directed that opportunity to explain discrepancies will be granted on payment of 25% of disputed tax.
