|
|
|
Newsletter no. 70 dated 06.02.2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
This website contains information about recent changes mainly in GST laws. It also contains Articles on various topic in GST. Please visit the website and read more.
|
|
|
|
Index
|
1. Budget 2023 - Finance Bills
|
|
2. Budget 2023 - Analysis by Expert
|
|
6. GST Notes by CMA Anil Sharma
|
|
7. Book by CMA Anil Sharma
|
|
|
|
1. Budget 2023 - Finance Bills
|
|
1) The Finance Bill, 2023
|
|
2) Memorandum Explaining the Provisions in the Finance Bill, 2023
|
|
3) Explanatory Memorandum to Notification 2 to 12 -Customs
|
|
4) Key Features of Budget 2023-24
|
7) Notification no. 2 to 12 -Customs & Central Excise Notification no.5
|
Link to download all the above documents - Click here
|
|
2. Budget 2023 - Analysis by Expert
|
|
1) Clause by clause analysis by CA Saradha Hariharan
|
|
2) Lawgics - Budget Special by Ms. Nidhi Aggarwal
|
|
3) Synopsis of amendments proposed in Budget by CA Vaishali Kharde
|
|
4) The Union Budget 2023-24 Analysis by CA Aditya Dhanuka
|
|
5) GST Changes in Budget 2023 by CA Pritam Mahure and Associates
|
|
6) The Essence of Budget 2023 by D. Dhayabaran & D. Shiva Roopa Ganesh
|
|
7) Clause wise Analysis - GST Amendments by S Khaitan & Associates
|
|
8) GST Budget 2023 Analysis by Ms. Aachal Kapoor
|
|
9) Union Budget - Clausewise analysis of Indirect tax proposals by CA Keval Mota
|
|
10) Highlights of Proposed GST Amendment by Parveen Mahajan
|
|
11) Key highlights of Union Budget 2023 by CA Bimal Jain
|
|
12) Clause-wise Analysis of Finance Bill, 2023 by CA. Shravan Gehlot
|
|
13) Newsletter for the day 1st Feb, 2023-Union Budget 2023 by CA Pradeep Jain
|
|
14) GNLA News Update Budget 2023 by Mr. Natarajan
|
15) Budget 2023 Analysis clause-by-clause by CA Avinash Gupta
|
Link to download all the above documents - Click here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the President on the 31st March, 2023 and is hereby published for general information.
|
The Finance Act, 2023 (No. 8 of 2023) dated 31.03.2023.
|
This giving effect to the financial proposals of the Central Government for the financial year 2023-2024.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- No need to take registration for Specified category of persons exempted from obtaining GST registration:
- It has been proposed to amend Section 23(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) with a non-obstante clause, that too retrospectively applicable w.e.f July 1, 2017, so as to provide that, persons required to take registration in GST as per Section 22(1) of the CGST Act and compulsory registration required under Section 24 of the CGST Act, need not to register themselves, if they are exempted from taking the GST registration.
- There are certain specified persons already exempted from compulsory registration viz. person making outward supplies which are exclusively covered under RCM, person making supplies of services through E-Commerce Operator having aggregate turnover not exceeding INR 20L in a FY, person supplying handicraft goods having aggregate turnover not exceeding INR 20L in a FY, person making inter-state supplies of taxable services having aggregate turnover not exceeding INR 20 Lakhs in a FY, etc. need not to obtain GST registration.
- Time limit of 30 days withdrawn for moving application for Revocation of Cancellation of GST Registration:
- It has been proposed to amend Section 30(1) of the CGST Act i.e. revocation of cancellation of registration, in order to remove the restriction on the registered person to apply for revocation of cancellation of its GST registration within 30 days from the date of service of the cancellation order.
- Thus, now any registered person, whose registration is cancelled by the proper officer on his own motion, may apply to such officer for revocation of cancellation of the registration in such manner, within such time and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed.
- Period to furnish Form GSTR 3B or Form GSTR 10 (Final Return) increased from 30 days to 60 days under Best Judgment Assessment:
- It has been proposed to amend Section 62(2) of the CGST Act i.e. Assessment of unregistered persons, so as to provide the time period of 60 days instead of 30 days, for furnishing return Form GSTR 3B or Form GSTR 10 (Final Return) where the proper officer has assessed tax liability on best judgment assessment basis.
- Moreover, where the registered person fails to furnish a valid return within 60 days of the service of the assessment order, he may furnish the same within a further period of 60 days on payment of an additional late fee of INR 100/- for each day of delay beyond 60 days of the service of the assessment order and in case he furnishes valid return within such extended period, the assessment order shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, but the liability to pay interest under Section 50(1) and late fee under Section 47 of the CGST Act shall continue.
- Constitution of GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) and Benches thereof:
- It has been proposed to substitute Section 109 of the CGST Act, so as to provide that, the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on the GSTAT, shall be exercised by the Principal Bench and the State Benches instead of 'National Bench or Regional Bench’, which would be set up in every state, while there will be a Principal Bench in New Delhi, consisting of the President, a Judicial Member, a Technical Member (Centre) and a Technical Member (State), and the issue involved w.r.t. the place of supply would only be heard by the Principal Bench. Further the State Benches will consist of two Judicial Members, a Technical Member (Centre) and a Technical Member (State).
- Moreover, appeals, where the amount w.r.t. tax or Input tax credit (“ITC”) or the amount of fine, fee or penalty, does not exceed INR 50 lakh and which does not involve any question of law may be heard by a single Member, whereas, in all other cases, shall be heard together by one Judicial Member and one Technical Member.
- Accordingly, relevant amendments have been made in Section 110 (Appointment, qualification, conditions of GSTAT members), Section 114 (Administrative & Financial powers of President of GSTAT), Section 117 (Appeal to High Court), Section 118 (Appeal to Supreme Court), and Section 119 (Sums due to be paid notwithstanding appeal, etc.) of the CGST Act.
- Place of supply of services of transportation of goods, other than by way of mail or courier to be the location of the recipient of services:
- It has been proposed to omit Section 13(9) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(“the IGST Act”)i.e. ‘the place of supply of services of transportation of goods, other than by way of mail or courier, shall be the place of destination of such goods’.
- Thus, now the place of supply of services in case of transportation of goods, other than by way of mail or courier would be covered under default provision of Section 13(2) of IGST Act and would be the location of the recipient of services.
- Maximum rate at which GST Compensation Cess may be collected:
- It has been proposed to amend the Schedule of the GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 pertaining to the maximum rate at which GST Compensation Cess may be collected for items such as Pan Masala (from 135% ad valorem to 51% of the retail sale price/ unit), Tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes, including tobacco products (INR 4170/ 1000 sticks or 290% ad valorem or a combination thereof but not exceeding INR 4170/ 1000 sticks + 290% ad valorem or100% of retail sale price/ unit). Further, new Explanation has been proposed to be inserted, defining the scope of ‘retail sale price’.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE FINANCE BILL, 2023 (As introduced in Lok Sabha)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speech of Dr. Palanivel Thiaga Rajan, Minister for Finance and Human Resources Management, Government of Tamil Nadu, resenting the Budget Estimates for the year 2023-24 to the Legislative Assembly on 20th March 2023.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Punjab government, which was not able to meet most of its targets from revenue receipts, has estimated a revenue deficit of 3.52 per cent and fiscal deficit of 4.98 per cent for the Budget 2023-24.
|
An analysis reveals that the government targeted an amount of Rs 95,378 crore from revenue receipts but was able to generate only Rs 93,563.21 crore. The Budget now proposes a target of revenue receipts to the tune of Rs 98,852.13 crore for the next fiscal.
|
GST collection too disappointed the government as it was able to collect Rs 19,000 crore against a target of Rs 20,550 crore, a shortfall of Rs 1,500 crore. The next fiscal target is Rs 23,000 crore. Finance Minister Harpal Cheema said that the collections would improve as the government would float a scheme to incentivise people to get a bill so that the GST was not evaded. However, it only expects Rs 4,000 crore enhancement than the 2022-23 fiscal. The only silver lining is that there is an increase compared to 2021-22 fiscal when the collections were Rs 15541.59 crore.
|
Punjab’s ambitious excise policy generated Rs 8,896.95 crore. However, it fell short of the target of Rs 9,647.87 crore. Next fiscal the target is Rs 9,785 crore. The receipts are better this year compared to last fiscal when it was Rs 6,157.28 crore.
|
Revenue from stamps and registration has proved to be encouraging at Rs 3,950.00 crore against a target of Rs 3,600 crore. Next year’s target is Rs 4,750.00 crore.
|
Electricity duty too has yielded better at Rs 2,900 crore against a target of Rs 2,550 crore. Next year target is Rs 2700 crore.
|
From sand mining, the state has been able to generate Rs 250 crore and has pegged the revenue at Rs 350 crore from mining in next fiscal. The amount will put the Aam Aadmi Party government on the defensive as Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal had promised that Punjab had a potential of sand mining to the tune of Rs 20,000 crore. Cheema refused to give the figure of sand mining to the media. He said the only mission was to provide sand at cheaper rates to the public and the government was able to achieve this.
|
State’s own non tax revenue has generated Rs 6052.92 crore against a target of Rs 6302.21 crore. Last year it was lesser at Rs 4783.77 crore. The next year target is now Rs 7823.99 crore.
|
State’s share of central taxes has been better than the target. It has been able to get Rs 17163.65 crore against a target of Rs 14756.86 crore.
|
Collection of grants in aid from centre too has not been able to hit the target. The government had estimated Rs 28731.04 crore but has received only Rs 26206.78 cr which is Rs 2524 crore lesser.
|
However, there has been an increase compared to last fiscal when the collection was Rs 20735.08 crore.
|
Cheema said that Punjab has witnessed a growth in state’s own tax and non tax revenues. While an increase of 23 per cent has been recorded in state’s GST, 45 per cent in excise, 19 per cent in stamps and registration, 12 per cent in taxes on vehicles and 26 per cent in non tax revenue compared to last fiscal. He said it was due to “good intent” of the government.
|
The cess of 90 paise on petrol and diesel levied recently has paid off with the government getting Rs 150 crore more than the target. The government estimated a collection of Rs 6,250 crore while it has received Rs 6400 crore.
|
Punjab Roadways and urban development revenue has fallen short of target. Roadways has earned only Rs 90 crore against a target of Rs 335 crore. Similarly, urban development revenue has fallen short of Rs 69 crore as the government has collected Rs 200 crore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Preventive Wing of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Commissionerate, Shimla, has uncovered an alleged GST fraud involving input tax credit of around ₹5.55 crore in the Kala Amb industrial area of Sirmaur district. The investigation has also led to the arrest of Gaurav Jain, managing director of M/s Samay Pharma India Private Limited, Trilokpur.
|
How Was the Alleged GST Fraud Carried Out?
CGST officials alleged that Samay Pharma and M/s Dual Healthcare claimed input tax credit using fake invoices issued by several firms that either did not exist or were found to be non-genuine.
|
The investigation found that ITC worth around ₹5.55 crore was allegedly claimed through invoices linked to 10 such firms. Officials examined the transactions to determine whether the supplies mentioned in these invoices had actually taken place.
|
What Did Officials Find About the Goods?
Officials said the invoices showed the purchase of goods, but there was no evidence confirming that those goods were actually transported.
|
E-way bills and toll-plaza records also did not support the movement of goods mentioned in the invoices, raising questions about whether the transactions reflected genuine supplies.
|
How Were GST Refund Claims Allegedly Involved?
Officials further alleged that the fake input tax credit was later included in GST refund claims.
|
The suspected credit was allegedly used in an attempt to obtain money back from the government through the GST refund mechanism.
|
What Other Irregularities Were Found?
During the investigation, officials found several suspicious transactions, fake firms and invoices without actual movement of goods.
|
They also alleged that shell entities were being used to manipulate the GST credit and refund system.
|
What Evidence Did Investigators Examine?
The CGST team recorded statements from several people during the investigation and examined digital evidence.
|
The inquiry also looked at invoices, the firms connected to them and records relating to the alleged movement of goods.
|
Why Was the Managing Director Arrested?
Based on the evidence collected during the investigation, Gaurav Jain, managing director of M/s Samay Pharma India Private Limited, was arrested.
|
The arrest was made under Section 69(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
|
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GST officers have arrested a partner of a firm engaged in trading of iron and steel goods for fraudulently availing input tax credit of over Rs 15.78 crore.
|
Investigations by the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST), Delhi South Commissionerate's anti-evasion branch revealed that the firm had availed inadmissible ITC on the basis of invoices issued by multiple firms, several of which were found to be non-existent, non-functional, suspended or cancelled.
|
Field verification also established that certain suppliers had no genuine business activity at their declared places of business.
|
In a statement, the Finance Ministry said, "CGST Delhi South Commissionerate have arrested a partner of the firm engaged in trading of iron and steel goods in a case involving fraudulent availment, utilisation and passing on of inadmissible ITC aggregating to over Rs 15.78 crore through bogus invoices of approximately Rs 87.67 crore."
|
Further inquiry established that ITC was availed without actual receipt of goods and was also passed on to various recipients through invoices issued without corresponding supply of goods.
|
Based on the evidence gathered during the investigation and statements recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, the accused was arrested on September 14 and produced before the Patiala House Court, which remanded him to judicial custody for 14 days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Superintendent of Central GST, Mohit Pratap Singh, was caught while allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs 8 lakh through a mediator, the Lokayukta said.
|
Lokayukta sleuths trapped the Central government officer while he was allegedly accepting the bribe at Kendriya Sadan in Koramangala here, according to a statement.
|
According to the Lokayukta, Singh had demanded the money to "close a false complaint" filed against the complainant, Syed Zameer, in connection with pending Central GST dues. PTI GMS SSK
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Punjab’s excise and taxation officials detained 170 vehicles carrying goods suspected to be in violation of GST provisions, officials said on Monday.
|
The operation, carried out jointly by all State Investigation and Preventive Units with special focus on Mandi Gobindgarh and Khanna, led to the seizure of iron scrap and finished iron/steel goods valued at more than Rs 5 crore.
|
Excise and Taxation Minister Harpal Singh Cheema described the drive as “a wake-up call for those who think they can get away with it.” He emphasised that the government is determined to plug every loophole and ensure that tax compliance becomes the rule of the day rather than the exception.
|
A substantial number of vehicles were found without proper invoices and prescribed documents, a clear violation of the GST law.
|
Punjab will not allow tax evasion to eat into the state’s revenue. Every legitimate rupee must reach the public exchequer, for it is the lifeblood of development, Cheema said in a statement.
|
The minister further informed that the detained consignments are undergoing detailed verification, which is expected to be completed within a week. PTI CHS MPL MPL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Telangana Commercial Taxes Department has issued detailed guidelines governing the use of Artificial Intelligence tools and other third party online platforms by its officers, making individual officers personally accountable for any unauthorised sharing of taxpayer information through such platforms.
|
Circular No. 1/2026, issued by the department, allows officers to use AI for generic research, drafting and administrative efficiency, but makes it clear that such use cannot come at the cost of taxpayer confidentiality, data security or the independent application of mind by officers.
|
The circular prohibits officers and staff from typing, pasting, uploading, scanning, photographing, dictating, transcribing or otherwise transmitting taxpayer related information into any public or commercial AT tool, chatbot, generative AI platform, document analyster, summariser translation or transcription service, or cloud based analytical software, unless the platform has been expressly authorised in writing by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes or the Government of Telangana.
|
CA Jitendra Patel, Partner, Indirect Tax, N.A.Shah Associates LLP, said the circular was a significant and welcome step towards the responsible use of AI by tax officers.
|
"The Telangana commercial taxes department's circular No. 1/2026 is a significant and welcome step towards the responsible use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) by tax officers. While the circular encourages the use of AI for research, drafting and administrative efficiency, it rightly emphasises that taxpayers' confidentiality and the independent application of mind by officers cannot be compromised and liable to penal action," Patel said.
|
Officers face personal accountability
The restrictions cover a wide range of taxpayer information, including GSTIN, PAN, legal name or trade name, address and contact particulars, bank account details, returns and annexures, financial statements, invoices, e way bill data, discrepancy reports, notices, assessment, adjudication or appellate orders, audit material, refund applications, inspection , search and investigation records, statements recorded during proceedings, and internal notes or legal opinions relating to an identifable taxpayer.
|
The circular also makes clear that the responsibility for protecting such information rests with the officer concerned. Unauthorised transmission of taxpayer information to an external AI platform can therefore expose the officer to disciplinary, legal and data protection consequences.
|
Ikesh Nagpal, Lead, Indirect Tax, AKM Global, said the circular strikes a balance between the use and AI and the need to protect taxpayer confidentialy.
|
"The Telangana Commercial Taxes Department's circular strikes a pragmatic balance between embracing AI and safeguarding taxpayer confidentiality. Rather than prohibiting AI, it permits its responsible use while drawing a firm boundary against sharing identifiable taxpayer information on unauthorised platforms. This is particularly relevant for tax administration, where officers routinely handle highly sensitive financial and transactional data," Nagpal said.
|
"More importantly, the circular reinforces that AI may assist but cannot replace the officers' independent application of mind. Every AI generated legal proposition or case citation must be independently verified, and the final order must reflect the officer's own reasoning. This approach places accountability where it belongs with the decision make while still allowing technology to improve efficiency in tax administration," he added.
|
AI cannot replace tax officer's judgment
The department has also stressed that AI cannot replace the independent judgment required from officers, particularly while issuing notices, assessments, adjudication orders and other quasi judicial decisions.
|
Manoj Mishra, Partner and Tax controversy Management leader, Grand Thornton Bharat, said the circular comes at a time when AI is becoming increasingly embedded in legal and tax workflows.
|
"As AI becomes increasingly embedded in legal and tax workflows, the focus has rightly shifted from whether AI should be used to ensuring it is used responsibly and within the boundaries of law. Recent judicial interventions, where courts have cautioned against mechanical reliance on AI generated content and even set aside orders lacking independent application of mind, underscore that technology cannot substitute statutory decision making. Recent Telangana's Circular on AI use is therefore a timely and pragmatic intervention. It reinforces that taxpayers information remains confidential under the GST framework and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, and that unauthorised disclosure on public AI platforms can trigger disciplinary, legal and data protection consequences. By permitting AI for generic research and drafting while mandating human verification, confidentiality safeguards and independent judgment, the circular offers and balanced governance framework that could serve as a useful precedent for tax administrations across the country , "Mishra said.
|
"The circular makes one point unmistakably clear: custodianship of taxpayer data carries personal accountability. Any unauthorised disclosure through public AI platforms may expose the officer to disciplinary action, criminal and data protection consequences, while also jeopardising the validity of the underlying tax proceedings. AI may improve administrative efficiency, but responsibility for data security, legal accuracy and independent decision making cannot be delegated to an algorithm," he added.
|
Public AI platforms treated as third party transmission
Aravind Srivatsan, Partner and India Tax Leader, Nangia Global, described the framework as what could be termed a first of its kind detailed code governing the use of AI tools by tax department staff.
|
He said the Telangana Government has acknowledged that officers are increasingly using AI based tools to improve the speed, consistency and quality of their work, while making it clear that such use cannot compromise taxpayer confidentiality, data security of the officer's independent judgment.
|
Srivatsan pointed out that large language models, generative AI platforms, chatbots, document analysers, summarisers, translators, transcription services and coding assistants may process information on private servers, frequently outside India. Information entered into such platforms may also be logged, retained , reviewed or used for model training, he said.
|
According to Srivatsan , typing , pasting, uploading, scanning, photographing or dictating departmental material into an external AI platform amounts to electronic transmission of information to a third party and can create risks of data leakage, misuse and subsequent litigation.
|
He said that where an officer transmits taxpayer particulars to an external AI engine without authority of law or taxpayer consent, the act can attract personal accountability.
|
Disciplinary, criminal and data protection consequences
The circular provides for consequences where taxpayer information is disclosed without authorisation. These can include disciplinary action under the applicable Telangana Civil Services rules, possible criminal consequences under applicable law and data protection consequences under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
|
The circular also addresses the potential impact on tax proceedings where AI generated material is used without proper verification. An officer remains responsible for the accuracy of statutory provisions, legal propositions and judicial precedents relied upon in an official proceeding.
|
Aditya Singhania, Founder of Trackase, said the guidelines could address the unauthorised and unconscious sharing of taxpayer data through general AI applications while also establishing individual responsibility for breaches.
|
He said the framework draws a clear distinction between the role of humans and machines in proceedings where tax officers exercise quasi judicial authority. He also pointed to instances where courts have taken cognisance of non existent. AI generated citations and said the Telangana framework provides detailed guidance for responsible use of AI by tax officials.
|
Officers told to delete past taxpayer data
The department has also addressed information that may already have been entered into AI platforms.
|
Officers and staff have been directed, to the extent technically feasible, to delete taxpayer related information previously entered into AI platforms, along with associated chat histories and stored files.
|
The restrictions also extend to the use of personal mobile phones, tablets, laptops, personal email accounts and personal cloud storage for processing departmental material through AI tools.
|
At the same time, the circular does not prohibit AI use altogether. Officers can use AI for generic research, drafting assistance and language related tasks, provided identifiable taxpayer information is not shared and AI generated material is independently verified before being relied upon.
|
The framework effectively places a clear boundary around the use of AI in tax administration. AI can be used as an efficiency tool, but the responsibility for taxpayer confidentiality, data security, legal accuracy and independent decision making remains with the tax officer.
|
Source: cfo economictimes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The document to claim ITC on RCM is Self Invoice and not the invoice issued by the vendor. Self invoice is raised in the month of payment of GST under RCM. And the timeline for taking credit begins from the date of self invoice.
|
If the vendor invoice is dated March 2026 but the RCM at that expense is paid in September 2026 then the self invoice would be raised in September 2026 after making GST payment and ITC time limit would be counted from September 2026.
|
The above has been clarified by the CBIC vide Press release dated 03.07.2019.
|
The condition of payment to the vendor within 180 days is not applicable to RCM as the tax is paid by the recipient himself.
|
Payment to Air transporter, bus service provider through as an agent
|
I am taking this point again to touch upon the payment condition of 180 days to the Indigo , Akasa, Spicejet, Red bus , the actual service provider. Normally the agent Thomas Cook or other local agents book tickets for the passenger. They raise their invoice for service rendered. And another invoice is raised to claim the reimbursement of ticket cost. Now the provision u/s 16(2) of CGST Act requires a recipient to make payment to service provider within180 days. This condition is not fulfilled as the payment is not made to airlines or bus operators. The payment is in fact made to Thomas Cook. And they pay to the airline.
|
Also, there is no ledger or account in the books of the recipient for Indigo, Akasa or Red bus.
|
In this case, a correlation of payment made on reimbursement invoice to Thomas Cook needs to be done with the airline ticket invoice details given as a support to that reimbursement invoice. Also, the airline invoices populate in GSTR 2B. The same can also be compared with invoice listings given by agents to match and claim the credit.
|
ISD credit is populated in table 4(A)(3) of GSTR 3B of the recipient on the filing of GSTR 6 by the Input Service Distributor (ISD).
|
The credit so distributed is supported by an invoice issued by ISD. The ISD is an office of the same company in a different state or in the same state. It may be a Head office or branch office which receive common services I.e. services received for all the branches including the same branch. Classic example is Tax audit, GST audit services.
|
The credit allocation to respective branches is done on the basis of turnover. It may be the previous month or the previous year. Previous year turnover is generally considered for allocation as the financials are audited.
|
The recipient of the ISD credit need not go into the working of ISD distribution. It may rely upon the ISD invoice for taking ITC. The responsibility of correct allocation lies on the ISD.
|
The timeline to claim credit on the ISD invoice does not hit by section 16(4). This is because the credit is first claimed by ISD following the condition prescribed in section 16 and distribution is a subsequent activity of just distributing the credit.
|
The basis for claiming ITC on import of goods is the 'Bill of Entry ' (BOE). This document prepared by the importer is verified by the customs officer and the basis of the same customs duty is paid.
|
The Customs portal (ICEGATE) automatically transmits the BOE details to the GST Portal , more specific to table 4(A)(1) of 3B.
|
The timeline of section 16(4) does not apply to BOE ITC. But there is another view that BOE is equivalent to Invoice and therefore the timeline of section 16 (4) applies to BOE as well.
|
BOE ITC also appears in GSTR 2B. There are notices when the importer claims ITC basis BOE copy when the details are not populated into 2B. On submission of BOE copy officers do accept the same and waive off the notice.
|
However, to pull the details to 2B from icegate you may go to Services > User Services > Search BoE.
|
Office rent or godown rent is generally paid on the basis of an agreement. The owner does not raise a monthly invoice. However, he files GSTR 1 regularly. The details also populate into 2B of the recipient. Whether the absence of invoice fulfils the condition of section 16(2)(a) of CGST Act? The answer is No.
|
An education to the owner is required on the importance of actually issuing an invoice. Till then the ITC can be taken on the basis of 2B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in GVK Jaipur Expressway Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. issued notice in the Special Leave Petition filed by the Assessee challenging the judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, which had dismissed its writ petition against a total GST demand of Rs. 14,06,54,640/-, wherein the Assessee contended that neither the Show Cause Notice (“SCN”) nor the adjudication order was duly served upon it and that the service was allegedly effected by merely uploading the same on the GST Common Portal. Taking note of the submission that the Hon’ble Madras High Court and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court have viewed such portal-upload as incomplete service, particularly where the relevant notices/orders may be referable to two separate tabs, namely “View Additional Notices/Orders” and “View Notices and Orders”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued notice, returnable in four weeks.
|
GVK Jaipur Expressway Pvt. Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) was issued an order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated February 29, 2024, raising a demand of Rs. 3.39 crores, wherein it was specifically found that the Petitioner did not discharge its due GST liability through FORM GST DRC-13 for the FY 2018-19 and accordingly, the demand along with interest and penalty was imposed under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the RGST Act”)/ the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”).
|
The said order was not challenged by the Petitioner in appeal. Consequently, vide order dated December 19, 2025, the bank account of the Petitioner was attached against the total demand, including tax and interest, of Rs. 14,06,54,640/-.
|
Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court contending that it did not come to know about the orders passed by the GST Authorities and that the SCN as well as the order in FORM GST DRC-07 were not properly communicated and placed on the GST Portal. The Petitioner further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Eagle Trans Shipping and Logistics India Private Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. , wherein the assessee therein was allowed to file an appeal on the ground that a person cannot be left remediless, if the time period for filing of appeal has expired and there are valid reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal.
|
However, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in GVK Jaipur Expressway Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. dismissed the writ petition, holding that a deliberate ignorance had been shown towards the SCN and the order, since it is not possible for a company to remain unaware of an order passed under Section 74, more so, when it continues to hold its GST registration and would, therefore, be filing regular monthly and annual returns. The Court further noted that neither an appeal was filed nor any attempt was made to file an appeal, and instead, the Petitioner had merely moved a rectification application seeking rectification of the order. Holding that equity does not lie in favour of the Petitioner and distinguishing the judgment in Eagle Trans Shipping (supra), the writ petition was dismissed.
|
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the Petitioner filed the present Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
|
Whether service of the SCN and the adjudication order by merely uploading the same on the GST Common Portal constitutes valid service, particularly where the relevant notices/orders may be referable to two separate tabs, namely “View Additional Notices/Orders” and “View Notices and Orders”?
|
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 25965 of 2026 held as under:
|
- Noted that, the Petitioner had raised the issue of non-service of the notice as well as the order, and that the notice was allegedly served by uploading it on the Common Portal.
- Observed that, as per the Petitioner, the Hon’ble Madras High Court as well as the Hon’ble Delhi High Court have viewed service of notice by uploading on the portal as incomplete, particularly where the relevant information may be referable to two tabs, namely, “View Additional Notices/Orders” and “View Notices and Orders”, and that the Petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the said decisions.
- Accordingly, issued notice in the SLP, returnable in four weeks.
- The case is tentatively listed on September 11, 2026 (computer generated date).
Section 169 of the CGST Act prescribes the modes of service of any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication, namely: (a) by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger/courier; (b) by registered post, speed post or courier with acknowledgement due; (c) by e-mail; (d) by making it available on the common portal; (e) by publication in a newspaper; or (f) by affixation. Further, Section 169(2) of the CGST Act provides that every such communication shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which it is tendered, published or affixed, as the case may be.
|
The moot question, which has divided the High Courts, is whether mere uploading of the SCN/order on the Common Portal under Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act, by itself, constitutes valid and effective service, especially in cases where such notices/orders were housed under the “View Additional Notices/Orders” tab, which was not readily visible to taxpayers, as against the regular “View Notices and Orders” tab. Notably, taking cognizance of this anomaly, the GSTN re-designed the portal in January 2024 to merge both the tabs under a single window, which itself is a tacit acknowledgment of the confusion caused by the twin-tab architecture.
|
A consistent line of decisions has favoured the taxpayer on this issue. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) and in Sabari Infra Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) set aside ex parte orders where the notices/orders were merely uploaded under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab without any effective communication to the taxpayer. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Anhad Impex v. Assistant Commissioner held that uploading of the SCN under the “Additional Notices” tab did not amount to sufficient communication and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. also extended the benefit of doubt to the taxpayer where the order was reflected under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab. Further, the Madurai Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Mrs. K. Balakrishnan, Balu Cables v. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST (2024) went a step ahead to hold that where no response is forthcoming from the taxpayer to the notices uploaded on the portal, the Department ought to explore other effective modes of service prescribed under Section 169 of the CGST Act, such as RPAD, instead of mechanically completing the formality by portal upload.
|
Per contra, a contrary line of decisions, including that of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Poomika Infra Developers v. State Tax Officer (January 2025), has taken the view that making a notice/order available on the Common Portal is itself a statutorily prescribed and independent mode of service under Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act, that the modes prescribed thereunder are alternative and not sequential, and hence, service stands complete upon such upload. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, in the impugned judgment, has adopted a similar approach, albeit resting primarily on the conduct of the taxpayer in exhibiting “deliberate ignorance”.
|
The issuance of notice by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the present SLP is, therefore, a significant development, as the verdict would authoritatively settle the divergence amongst the High Courts on the validity and sufficiency of portal-based service under Section 169 of the CGST Act. The outcome would have a direct bearing on a large number of ex parte adjudications, consequential recovery/attachment proceedings, and appeals barred by limitation under Section 107 of the CGST Act, where the taxpayers’ primary grievance is want of effective service. Until the issue is settled, taxpayers would be well-advised to regularly monitor all the tabs on the Common Portal and keep their e-mail and contact details updated, while the Department, on its part, should adopt supplementary modes of service where no response is received, so that adjudication does not get reduced to an empty formality in breach of the principles of natural justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let us see some scenario where Input tax credit claim need critical thinking -
|
Short quantity / damaged quantity
Sometime the goods are received in short quantity due to loss in transit. Or sometime some unit of goods get damaged while unloading of the goods from the vehicle. So, the quantity as mentioned in the invoice is not equal to the quantity actually received by the buyer. In this case, there are two methods of accounting the receipt of the goods. First one is accounting of the net quantity received . Second , account the full quantity mentioned on the invoice and then raise credit note for the short or damaged quantity.
|
The second method seems helpful in performing reconciliation of the purchases with GSTR-2B. As in 2B the invoice and credit note details are captured separately. Thus, the total quantity in books matches with the total quantity on invoice and the credit note in books will match with credit note sheet in GSTR-2B .
|
A question may arise as to why would a buyer account full quantity when he had received a lesser quantity and then account for the short quantity with a credit note? He would simply account the net quantity received.
|
But the method of accounting invoice and credit note separately would certainly give a clarity to the buyer and also to the department officer. It is easier to explain the match of the ITC in books with ITC in invoice sheet in 2B and credit note in books with the Credit note sheet in 2B.
|
Retention money
This concept is common in construction sector where the service receiver holds some part of the amount in every RA bill till the entire civil project gets completed. Once the project is completed may be in 6 months or 1 year or may be 1.5 years' time the money on hold may be released thereafter.
|
A civil work may include construction of new factory building or admin building or major expansion to the existing building. RA - Running Account means the tracking of a project milestone and raising invoice according to the completion of the project.
|
There is a condition u/s 16(2) of CGST Act, 2017 to claim ITC. The section requires the buyer to make full payment (basic value + GST) to the vendor. Since the payment is on hold the proportionate credit to the extend on hold payment the ITC need to be reversed.
|
There exist different view that payment of agreed value should be considered for payment instead of considering the invoice value. The quantum of payment is agreed by both the parties and statutory law should not insist on making payment of invoice value.
|
Free samples
Some quantity of goods are generally given to the distributor free of cost to boost sales. This is required to create market for new product. The free quantity eligibility depends upon the turnover of the distributor. For instance, if you buy 10 quantity you will get 2 quantity free. Similarly, on 100 quantity purchase, 20 quantity would be given as free. This is not a "buy one get one free concept" but it is a commitment of selling a targeted quantity of goods to the buyer and free goods are reward for that.
|
The movement of goods are taken place through a Delivery Challan mentioning value of goods and GST. The value of goods is generally MRP or market value of similar product. Such nominal value also required for e-way bill purpose.
|
Buy one get one free
'Buy one and get another one free' is one of the marketing techniques. The free product is given through invoice. It is shown on the face of the invoice.
|
It appears that one quantity is given free when another quantity is purchased. But the recent Circular clarifies that even though one quantity appears to be free but in practice the cost of another product is embedded in the cost of the first product purchased by paying cost. Accordingly, there is no need for reversal of ITC on goods given as free on face of invoice.
|
Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) Service
The classic example of AMC contract is Air conditioner (AC) service. The service provider charges AMC for services to be given in next 12 months at the beginning of the year itself and raise tax invoice with GST. But since the service receipt is scattered over a period of 12 months , the question arises whether full GST credit is eligible at first month itself or wait till 12 months to become eligible to claim credit?
|
The invoice copy is received, the invoice appears in 2B , tax is paid by supplier, etc. and it is recorded in books by the recipient also. In practice the ITC is taken on receiving the invoice and matching the details with 2B.
|
GSTIN cancellation
It may happen that GSTIN of the supplier was active at the time of issuing invoice but later-on their GSTIN got cancelled. The ITC may be rejected by the officer because of cancelled GSTIN of the supplier. If the ITC is negligible then reversal the ITC. Otherwise, wait for the auditor to point it out and then justify with the case law that 'Lex Non Cogit ad Impossibilia' and other valid justifications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Input tax Credit (ITC) should be correctly recorded in the books of accounts. Timely recording in books is of great advantage. It helps in working capital management.
|
Sometime the invoices are received at the reception of the office but not forwarded to the accounts department. And sometime the invoices are with the procurement team but due to service pendency or issue in service the invoice is held by that department. These practical business issues leads to delay in accounting the invoices. These invoices then remain as a reconciliation item in the GST return working.
|
GSTR-2B is a facilitation of the government to the recipient to make them aware that these are their purchases. We can say that it is similar to 26AS statement of Income tax. GSTR-2B credit cannot be directly accommodated in the books because they are only a reflection of your suppliers' compliance to you, and not a complete purchases. But certainly a very helpful report which a tax payer can rely upon and comply GST.
|
IMS (Invoice Management System) is a real time statement where invoices uploaded by the vendor is populated in it. Even if you don't follow the IMS procedure of acceptance, rejection and on-hold activity but certainly you can use it so ascertain the purchases you made during the period. You may also follow up with the vendor or with internal stakeholder to collates invoices so that you can record it in books of accounts timely.
|
Tax should be paid by the vendor to the government. This is one of the condition given u/s 16 of CGST Act, 2017 to take ITC as you already aware of. Some vendors does their tax compliance through a tax consultant. With the volume of work the consultant has they may skip to upload your invoice in the GSTR-1 return. It may also happen that tax is also not paid to the government. In such cases, the ITC is denied to you (buyer). You must highlight it to the vendor and give opportunity to regularise the compliance by uploading the invoice and making payment to the government. If that does not happen even after repeated request then you may recover the tax component from your vendor ledger.
|
In line with this, you may enter a GST clause in the agreement (oral or written) that if GST is not populated in GSTR-2B then you will be withholding the GST component. Since you already paid the tax component to the vendor , getting ITC rejected would end paying tax again to the government. Hence, recovering that part from the vendor is a correct course of action. Also, the vendor is not suppose to profit out of the tax collected from buyer. He is an agent of the government. He must remit that tax to the government. He is an agent in the manner that he collects the tax from customer and remit to the government. He cannot skip doing his job.
|
As an alternate , I think the GST can work like TDS (Tax deducted at Source) where buyer withhold GST from the payment to the vendor and deposit it directly to the government. So, every transaction would be reported in return on monthly basis (as many taxpayer are monthly filer) and it would populate to the vendor for offsetting against their GST payable.
|
In this TDS like compliance the challenge would be that the buyer need to make the payment to government on monthly basis despite of the payment terms agreed with the vendor. The payment terms are 30 days , 60 days or in some cases 90 days. This is generally followed. Exceptional payment terms of 180 days or more also exist in a commercial transaction.
|
What do you think of any other challenges if TDS concept of tax payment introduced in GST? Put you thoughts in the comment section below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no free lunches in this world. India's businesses just found out the one they'd been eating for years had a bill attached all along.
|
For years, UPI has been treated by businesses as a payment channel with virtually no direct merchant cost. The proposed MDR framework changes that assumption. More importantly, the change is not confined to payment costs it creates consequences for accounting, GST, reconciliation, pricing and internal controls.
|
Since, parliament has given accent to the Taxation and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, thus from October 15, 2026, there will be levy of merchant discount rate charges (MDR Charges) on UPI payments on transactions above the prescribed threshold limit.
|
For an industry built on the promise of "free," that single decimal point affects business's economics. The MDR fees of 0.4% as proposed by Government of India will be levied by the NPCI on the amount to be credited to the merchant, directly impacting the books of accounts of the merchant.
|
From October 15, the finance and Accounting team will have to add a new head to the chart of accounts, prepare sales reconciliation, and will have to account for GST input tax credit.
|
The accounting story is where it gets interesting, and where most of the coverage so far has stopped short. Before getting to the books, though, it's worth understanding why zero-MDR ends now rather than at some other time because the mechanism the Government used to open this door says something about how much room it's kept to redraw the line again.
|
The Legal Mechanism
The zero-MDR mandate was never a commercial choice it was a statutory bar under Section 10A of the Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007 which prohibited any charge on payments made through the electronic modes prescribed under Section 269SU of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (UPI and RuPay debit cards among them).
|
However, the Taxation and Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2026 has removed the blanket statutory protection into a notification-dependent one. Zero-charge protection now applies only to whatever electronic payment modes the Central Government chooses to notify. A mode the Government does not notify simply falls outside the bar, and the ordinary commercial freedom to price a service applies.
|
On 14 September 2026, the Government exercised that power and notified UPI transactions up to ₹2,000 transactions as protected.
|
What attracts MDR ?
General P2M transactions above ₹2,000: 0.4% MDR, shared among issuing/remitter bank, acquiring bank, payment service provider and UPI app, capped at ₹300 for transactions of ₹75,000 and above.
|
- Essential/thin-margin sectors (railways, telecom, insurance, fuel, agricultural inputs): a flat ₹5 per transaction above ₹2,000, giving cost certainty rather than a percentage exposure.
- Capital-market transactions (mutual funds, securities, stockbrokers, dealers): 0.02%, capped at ₹300.
- Small merchants: those receiving under ₹1 lakh a month through UPI QR codes remain fully exempt from the new charge, keeping kirana-scale acceptance untouched while pulling in higher-volume merchants.
It has been stated that the merchant has to bear the cost of MDR charge, and customers do not pay this. Banks have been directed to ensure merchants don't pass MDR through, and UPI app providers are barred from levying platform fees or hidden charges. This is a cost inside the merchant payment ecosystem which is precisely why it has to be absorbed in the books, not billed separately.
|
However, increasing the cost for merchant will rise the rate for the goods or service, stating MDR a non transferable charge is effectively hold zero value.
|
Accounting Treatment: Where the Money Actually Goes
Because the merchant cannot invoice MDR separately to the customer, it has to be built into cost of sales or booked as an indirect expense not shown as a deduction from sales revenue.
|
Example: A merchant sells goods worth ₹10,000, taxed at 18% GST, invoice value ₹11,800, paid via an eligible UPI transaction.
|
In percentage terms, the merchant gives up roughly 0.48% of the transaction value (0.4% MDR plus GST on that MDR) small in isolation, but on high-volume, thin-margin businesses, a recurring leak that compounds across thousands of transactions a month.
|
Suggested journal entries:
|
This means two changes to the accounting system before 15 October:
|
- (1) a new chart-of-accounts head an indirect expense ledger for MDR and
- (2) a process to book that expense simultaneously with every UPI receipt above ₹2,000, rather than net it off silently against revenue.
Most POS/accounting software will need a rule change here; reconciliation teams should not be manually adjusting this transaction by transaction.
|
The merchant will separately receive an invoice from the UPI ecosystem participant (routed via the beneficiary/acquiring bank) for the MDR service fee and the GST on it.
|
A GST-registered business, once it satisfies the conditions under Section 16 of the CGST Act - a valid tax invoice, receipt of service, GST actually paid by the supplier and return filed, and payment made to the vendor can claim input tax credit on that GST.
|
But ITC eligibility is not instantaneous: it depends on the counterparty's compliance (GSTR-2B matching) and on payment being made within the statutory window, which means a temporary working-capital block between the deduction and the credit being available to set off.
|
Where the Full Cost Becomes Burden
For businesses dealing in GST-exempt goods or services, or registered under the composition scheme, there is no ITC to claim. The entire MDR and the GST on it becomes a straight cost, with no offsetting credit this group absorbs the charge in full, and it should be modelled as a direct margin hit, not a pass-through compliance item.
|
Refunds: An Open Question, With a Likely Answer
If a customer pays via UPI and later seeks a refund, MDR has already been deducted on the original inflow. Whether MDR is deducted again on the refund leg effectively taxing the same transaction twice is not yet settled by the framework.
|
Card-network practice offers a reasonable precedent: MDR is typically not refunded to the merchant when a sale is reversed, meaning the merchant bears the original MDR cost even on a cancelled sale, and a second charge on the refund transfer itself would be an additional cost layered on top.
|
Given the Government's position that merchants bear the MDR cost, businesses with high return rates (electronics, apparel, e-commerce) should plan for the worst case MDR absorbed on both legs until NPCI or the banks clarify treatment, and build this into pricing or refund-policy assumptions now rather than after the fact.
|
Who Gets Hit Hardest
The businesses most exposed are those taking instant, direct payment from end consumers - hospitals, electronics retailers, medical stores, restaurants, and similar high-ticket, walk-in businesses where UPI is the default payment rail and transaction values routinely cross ₹2,000. Whereas, formal B2B businesses are comparatively insulated: they typically settle through NEFT/IMPS/RTGS for vendor and institutional payments precisely because those channels preserve a documented audit trail, and those rails sit outside this MDR framework entirely.
|
In other words, the dividing line isn't business size it's payment channel and average ticket size.
|
The ₹1 lakh/month small-merchant exemption pulls the smallest UPI-QR acceptors out of this analysis altogether, which narrows the real-world impact to mid-size and larger merchants transacting at volume - exactly the segment that should be updating its accounting systems before the October cutover.
|
A Live Legal Overhang
Before finance teams treat this as settled, it's worth noting that a PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Finance Ministry's 14 September notification and the amended Section 10A itself, in the case of Anjan Datta vs. Union of India & Ors. arguing that “...the framework itself acknowledges that the merchant must bear a charge on each qualifying receipt. For low-margin traders, service providers and digitally dependent businesses, that cost necessarily enters the price structure, reduces working capital, or induces refusal of UPI and splitting of transactions. A bare direction against an expressly recognised economic consequence does not eliminate the burden,"
|
Further, it was argued that “A transaction of ₹2,001 attracts a percentage charge while one of ₹2,000 does not; a merchant may lose protection by crossing a monthly aggregate boundary unrelated to margin, turnover, geography or ability to bear the fee; and the framework grants a proportionately larger benefit to very high-value transactions through the cap. These cliffs are capable of distorting behaviour and discriminating between similarly situated merchants”.
|
It will be interesting to see judiciary’s view on the levy of MDR charges, but the finance and accounting team must tighten their belt to accommodate the MDR charges in the books of accounts and for statutory compliances.
|
Action Checklist for Finance Teams
- Add a dedicated MDR expense ledger and an input-GST-on-MDR ledger to the chart of accounts.
- Configure billing/POS systems to auto-book MDR and GST-on-MDR against every eligible UPI receipt above ₹2,000, rather than netting silently.
- Build a vendor-invoice tracking process for MDR bills from the acquiring/beneficiary bank, so ITC claims aren't missed and Section 16 conditions are monitored.
- For composition-scheme or exempt-supply businesses, re-model margins to absorb MDR as a direct cost with no offsetting credit.
- Decide a refund policy assumption now treat MDR as non-recoverable on the original sale, and budget for possible re-deduction on the refund leg until clarified.
- Track the Supreme Court proceeding, but don't defer system changes pending its outcome the framework is live from 15 October regardless.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of Mr. Pradyuman Joshi. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation. The author does not accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. GST Notes by CMA Anil Sharma
1) Shri CMA Anil Sharma, Shri CMA Gurdev Singh Saini and Smt. CMA Bhawna Sharma already posted Chapter-13 containing CGST Act in simple language in PPT format. This is to make dealers, professionals, academicians, students etc. understand the basics of GST laws. Each Chapter in CGST Act, 2017 is explained in the form of Slides as given below for easy understanding of the Act:
|
Chapter-13 slides given below:-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7) Book by CMA Anil Sharma, B.Com (Honrs), M.Com, FCMA co-author of the book
|
|
Handbook on GST Audit by Tax Authorities has authored yet another book
|
|
title Goods & Service Tax – Some Perceptions and Reflections. Buy now at Price Rs.300/-.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You wish to publish your Article?
|
If you wish to share your article with maximum readers then please send them at taxupdate.otu@gmail.com. We shall publish it with all due credit to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hope the above updates is of use to you. Please share your input and feedback at taxupdate.otu@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
Visit our website
|
OTU provides you
|
- Articles on various topics
|
|
- Media - GST, Income Tax & Press R.
|
|
- Notes / Newsletter etc.
|
|
|
|
|