Thank you for your response
Our representative will get in touch with you shortly.
Thank you for your response
Reversal of input tax credit by the recipient due to non-compliance by the supplier is one of the biggest issues faced by the taxpayer since the implementation of GST.
28th May 2021
CGST Rule 36(4) to cumulatively apply for April, May and June 2021 while filing GSTR-3B of June 2021.
1st May 2021
The CGST Rule 36(4) restricting provisional ITC claims to 5% of GSTR-2B in GSTR-3B is relaxed for April 2021. The taxpayer can apply this rule cumulatively for both April and May while GSTR-3B for May 2021.
1st February 2021
Budget 2021 update: Section 16 amended to allow taxpayers’ claim of the input tax credit based on GSTR-2A and GSTR-2B. Henceforth, the input tax credit on invoice or debit note may be availed only when the details of such invoice or debit note have been furnished by the supplier in the statement of outward supplies and such details have been communicated to the recipient of such invoice or debit note.
A registered taxpayer can claim an input tax credit on the taxes paid on its inward supplies subject to the below conditions:
Reversal of ITC means adding back the credit utilised earlier to the output tax liability. ITC can be reversed under various scenarios as mentioned in the Act. Some of the cases of ITC reversal are:
Some of the provisions related to claiming of ITC and its reversal are discussed below:
Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act: As per this section, ITC can be claimed only if the tax collected by the supplier is paid to the government either in cash or through the utilisation of its admissible ITC in respect of such supply.
Section 41 of the CGST Act: This section talks about claiming ITC on a self-assessment basis. Such an amount gets credited to the electronic credit ledger of the taxpayer, which can be utilised for payment of self-assessed output tax liability.
Section 42(2) of the CGST Act: This section talks about claiming ITC, which matches the IGST paid under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act.
Section 42(3) of the CGST Act: As per this section, if the ITC claimed by the recipient is more than the tax declared by the supplier on that particular sale or has not declared such a sale in his returns, then such discrepancy should be communicated to both the parties.
Section 42(5) of the CGST Act: This section states that if the discrepancy communicated in section 42(3) is not rectified by the supplier in his valid return for the month in which such discrepancy is communicated the such ITC shall be added back to the output tax liability of the recipient.
Thus, Section 42 nowhere talks about the automatic reversal of ITC. There should be no reversal of ITC until matching is done between the supplier and the recipient.
Section 43: This section states the provisions related to matching of ITC, reversal of ITC and reclaims of reduction in output tax liability.
Section 43A: This section deals with filing GST returns and the procedure for claiming the input tax credit.
All the above provisions are not functional provisions related to problems faced by the taxpayer on the common portal.
The recipient of supply has no means to ensure that the tax collected by the supplier in respect of supply has been paid to the government. Moreover, there is no administrative mechanism related to the automatic reversal of ITC. Thus, rejection of ITC and recovery thereof is not reasonable.
In its press release 4th May 2018, Council recommendation: The GST Council has mentioned that there should be no automatic reversal of credit from the buyer on non-payment of tax by the seller. Instead, the recovery should be made from the seller. However, the tax authorities can do ver, a reversal from the buyer’s credit to address exceptional situations like missing dealers, closure of business by the supplier, etc.
D.Y. Beathel Enterprises Vs State Tax Officer- Madras High Court
Facts: The petitioners had purchased goods from Charles and his wife Shanti. The petitioner had made payment for the sale consideration entirely through banking channels. The payments included a tax component as well. The supplier Charles and his wife are also registered under the same assessment circle. However, the suppliers didn’t pay tax to the government.
Conclusion: The Madras High Court held that Charles and his wife should be first summoned by the GST Department and should be asked to pay GST and no automatic reversal of ITC.
The Supreme Court held a similar stand in the case of Commissioner of Trade & Taxes, Delhi and others Vs. Arise India Limited and others. The Supreme Court held: