Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post a Query
Post a New Query
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID :

Wrongly avail input

NIRMAL Kashyap

I have recently received a departmental notice under Section 74 for the fiscal year 2017-18, citing an inadvertent claim of CGST and SGST input instead of IGST. I promptly rectified this in my annual return; however, due to the absence of any purchases involving CGST and SGST input in the specified period, the correction was not reflected in the GSTR-3B.

Seeking your guidance on the best course of action to safeguard my case.

Taxpayer Challenges Section 74 Notice for CGST/SGST Error; Experts Suggest Section 73 or GSTR-3B Amendment Options An individual received a notice under Section 74 for mistakenly claiming CGST and SGST input instead of IGST for the fiscal year 2017-18. Despite correcting this in the annual return, the error wasn't reflected in GSTR-3B due to no relevant purchases. One expert suggested writing to the Nodal Officer to amend the GSTR-3B, referencing a Karnataka High Court judgment. Another advised considering the limitation period and arguing that Section 74 is inapplicable, suggesting Section 73 should have been used. A third expert referenced a Kerala High Court case treating a writ as a rectification application for GSTR-3B correction. (AI Summary)
answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Issues