What is due date for claiming ITC for FY 2021-22 ?

Vide Finance Act 2022 Government has amended Sec 16(4) of CGST Act 2017 and extended due date for claiming ITC to 30th November of next year.

⦁ However it is to be noted that, yet this amendment is not made effective by government.

⦁ Therefore as of now , kindly claim pending ITC of FY 2021-22 before due date of Sep 2022 return.

#gst #itc #gstreturn #gstitc #inputtaxcredit

Due to recent changes in ITC Table of GSTR 3B, additional details to be checked for the purpose of GSTR 3B –

1.    Details of Ineligible Credit – Ineligible ITC is now required to reversed from the gross ITC availed in GSTR 3B and therefore, the complete details of Ineligible ITC is required to be reported in GST return. Such Ineligible ITC should include the following details:
·      ITC not allowed as per section 17(5) of CGST Act
·      ITC not allowed on account of POS rules
·      ITC pertaining to the invoices which are pending for payment for more than 180 days to be counted from the date of invoice
2.    Details of ITC which was claimed inadvertently in the previous periods – It may include the following:
·      Ineligible ITC wrongly claimed earlier
·      ITC claimed twice and to be reversed now
·      ITC to be reversed due to other reasons

#gstreturn #gstindia #gstregistration #gst #gstlitigation #gstupdates

New Disclosures in Board’s Report

As we all are aware that the Board’s Report is prepared under subsection 3 of section 134 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 8 of the Companies (Accounts) Rules, 2014

⦁ Now, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has amended Rule 8, after the amendment along with the existing matter contained in the Board’s Report two new matters shall be added to the Board’s Report.

⦁ The two new disclosures (along with the existing disclosures) shall be applicable for the Financial year 2021-22 and the two new disclosures are:-

Details of applications under the IBC, 2016 during the year along with their status as at the end of the financial year.

The details of the difference between the amount of the *valuation done at the time of one-time settlement and the valuation done while taking a loan from the Banks or Financial institutions along with the reasons thereof. So, you can add the above clauses in Board’s Report as follows:-


During the year under review, there were no applications made or proceeding pending in the name of the company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016


During the year under review, there has been no time settlement of loans taken from Banks and Financial institutions

Kindly note that the above two matters shall be made in the Board’s Report only in case there is no application or proceeding pending under IBC; or where there is no loan taken or no settlement happened from the Bank.

#boardsreport #boardreport #companiesact2013 #audit #companiesaudit #statutoryaudit

Lot of CAs are burdened with the Tax Audits in the month of September as the 30th is the last date. Please go through the below points

 Standards on Auditing are mandatory to be followed in planning and performing the audit.

 For clarity on any specific matter, members can refer to the Guidance note issued by the ICAI.

 Risk assessment is a critical element which should never be ignored.

 One should never compromise on the audit procedures due to paucity of time.

 Review mechanism within the practicing firm improves the quality of audit.

️ Never to forget Integrity, Objectivity, and Independence.

#audit #tax #auditing #icai #ca #standards

Practicing CAs issue various certificates at the request of their clients and authorities take them as documentary proof to support a transaction

One of the certificates which are generally asked for by Banks and financial institutions is End Use Certificate. It is part of the banks’ monitoring process after the loan amount’s disbursal.

Utmost care is required from the professional in issuing these certificates. A CA should satisfy himself with documentary proof before the issue of such certificates. There should not be any chance of tolerable error.

It’s beneficial in accepting the assignment if CA knows the level of integrity of the client. The basis of certification and management explanations should be included in the relevant work papers.

#CACertificate #Audit #CompanyAudit #StatutoryAudit #TaxAudit #StockAudit #InternalAudit

Penalty cannot be imposed for incorrect address in e-way bill

Penalty cannot be imposed for incorrect address mentioned in the e-way bill, unless an inquiry is made to ascertain whether there was any intent to evade tax in mentioning the wrong address: Madras High Court

Petitioner’s transporter, on being intercepted, was found to carry GST paid goods to the petitioner’s office at Jabalpur whereas e-way bill generated showed destination as Indore. The State Tax Officer invoking its power under sec. 68 r/w sec. 129 of CGST Act, levied tax as well as penalty. Petitioner challenged the order by way of appeal but the same was rejected. Being aggrieved, petitioner moved the High Court by way of Writ Petition.

Petitioner argued that due to inadvertence during generation of the e-way bill, a clerical error took place due to which the registered address of the petitioner at Indore was mentioned in the e-way bill instead of the address at Jabalpur.

Revenue argued that exemption from the rigour of sec. 129 can only be availed on arising of contingencies as enumerated in Clause 5 of Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST, dated 14-09-2018. One of the contingencies which may extend immunity from sec. 129 relates to error in address of the consignee to the extent of locality, provided that the other details of consignee are mentioned correctly. As such, the benefit of clause 5 of the said Circular is not available to the petitioner.

The HC observed that strictly going by the terminology used in the immunity provision under Clause 5 of the circular, the benefit flowing therefrom may not be available to the petitioner, but in penal provision such as sec. 129, the element of intention to evade tax must be present to sustain an order of penalty. To gather the intention of the petitioner an inquiry must be undertaken to ascertain whether the mistake was inadvertent with no element of malice or intention to evade tax. It does not appear that either the Taxing Authority or the appellate authority has undertaken the said exercise of to ascertain the real intent behind the act of petitioner to mention wrong address.

The HC, therefore, quashed the appellate order and directed the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal solely on the question of presence or absence of any malafide intention to evade tax on the part of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within three months.

𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀:
1. Element of intention to evade tax must be present in order to sustain order of penalty.

2. An inquiry must be undertaken to ascertain intention of the taxpayer as to whether the mistake was inadvertent or with intent to evade tax.

3. Penalty is not automatic and should not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obligated either acted deliberately in defiance of law or is found to be guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. 25 STC 211.