GST Daily
Dear Reader,
Today’s newsletter analytically summarizes the top GST stories reported at taxmann.com.
The petitioner company was engaged in the business of mining. There was an error in GSTR-1 filed for January 2019 of inadvertently mentioning the GSTIN Number due to employee's mistake and this error was noticed only during the settlement of accounts in 2021. The purchaser withheld payment in respect of the invoice as the invoice was not reflected in the GSTR-2A return for the said period. It filed a writ petition seeking relief by way of rectifying GSTR-1. ? ? ?
The Honorable High Court noted that the purchaser had reversed the entry of ITC wrongly availed based on entries in books of account since the invoice was not reflected in his GSTR-2A return for the said period. Moreover, the party whose GSTIN was wrongly mentioned had not availed ITC wrongly reflected in its GSTR-2A. Therefore, it was held that there was no loss of revenue to the Government and the interest of justice would be served if the petitioner would be allowed to make the necessary correction in GSTR-1. Thus, the petitioner was allowed to rectify its GSTR-1 within a period of 8 weeks from the date of order. ?
The petitioner was purchasing edible oil from wholesale dealers and doing retail business. It received a notice stating that on scrutiny of Form GSTR-1 v. GSTR-3B, differences were found. The petitioner filed his objections and enclosed the difference between the purchase and sale details. However, the order was passed wherein these factors were not considered and further, no personal hearing was given to the petitioner. It filed a writ petition against the same. ? ? ? ? ?
The Honorable High Court observed that the petitioner in his reply filed an annexure showing the difference in calculation. But, in the impugned order, there was no reason given for why the petitioner's calculation was not considered. Moreover, the department questioned classification, which needed personal hearing and perusal of documents and thereafter, detailed order was to be passed. Thus, it was held that the impugned order being cryptic and non-speaking was to be set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration after affording the opportunity of a personal hearing to the petitioner.
That’s it from us for today! Stay Tuned for more updates from?Taxmann.com
Register for Taxmann’s Live Webinar | GST on Charitable Institutions, including Healthcare & Educational Institutions
?? 16th November 2022 (Wednesday) | ?? 5:00 PM – 6:00 PM (IST)
Register Now for FREE! (Limited Slots Available): https://taxmann.social/EeTx2
?? Coverage of the Webinar:
?? Exemption to Charitable Institutions
? Meaning of Charitable Institutions
? Comparison of GST Provision with Income-tax Provisions
? Taxability on the Sale of Goods, including Sacred Food (Prasad)
? The Implication of Conducting the Ceremony and Renting Premises
?? Exemption to Educational Institutions
? Meaning of Educational Institution
? Exemption to an Educational Institution
? Implication for Online/Distant Education
? Taxability of Sale of Goods like Uniforms, Stationery, Books etc.
?? Exemption to Healthcare Sector
? Meaning of Healthcare
? Taxability of Medical Consumptions, Supply of Food and other Related Services
? Implications on Expiry of Medicines
? Implications of the Distribution of Free Sample
?? Speaker:
? CA Aanchal Kapoor
She has been a Fellow member of ICAI since January 2009 and is a Law Graduate. She has been in practice for over ten years in indirect taxes. She advises clients and appears before the appellate authorities on Indirect-tax matters.
?? Relevant For:
? Chartered Accountants
? Tax Professionals
? Corporates
? Finance Executives
? Revenue Officers